Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's

[Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling)]

Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that
> > should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are
> > published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the
> > incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make
> > untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples
> > incorrect articles) before asking?
> > 
>
> No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the
> question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs
> using Google which implies he had nothing to do them.

Could you explain me why he did not read the information on the cdrtools
web page to get the information?

> > What do you call "a modified CDDL license" and why do you believe
> > there is "a modified CDDL license"?
>
>
> Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D)

It makes no sense to answer questions if the question contains a hint for a 
missunderstanding.

> Seriously, "eix -v cdrtools" gives "GPL-2 LGPL-2.1 CDDL-Schily". I
> assumed you want the package released under your own licence based on
> the Sun's CDDL.

If you read the CDDL, you should understand the background. Meanwhile it makes
sense to tell the person who is responsible for the missleadingly shortened
information to correct it.

BTW: If you like to understand it completely compare the 1st CDDL proposal with 
the final text. I am responsible for the changes and these changes allow authors
like me to use the CDDL. Before it was only usable in the USA and only by Sun.

> > Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some
> > people (those people who now stand behind "wodim") started to attack
> > the cdrtools project?
>
>
> No, I've never heard about the problem before I saw your posts to this
> list several months ago, but I really care to see your side of the
> story.

Why don't you then frist read the information on the cdrtools web page?


> First it would be interesting, second more effective for your cause and
> third it would hopefully cease your current practice to hijack every
> optical media related thread on this list and send spam that advertises
> your product (cdrtools).

If you believe this, then we need to stop this thread immediately.

Every such thread on this list that was based on Bugs introduced by the people 
who "created" wodim.

  
> I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours
> is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it
> backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you
> have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans.

Do you like to tell me that Gentoo users are not interested to know why they
have problems with CD/DVD writing?
Do you like to tell me that nobody is interested in a simple fix?


> You want to use the CDDL. On the other hand you can't release the whole
> project under CDDL, because there are parts written by other people who
> had released their work under GPL before you took the project. So, you
> dual-licensed the package, releasing the parts you have written by
> yourself as CDDL and the others w/o changing the license.
>
> (How am I doing so far?)

It seems that you never tried to read the information on the cdrtools
web page.


> Some Debian maintainers saw a problem because CDDL is not compatible
> with GNU GPL and they made the fork "cdrkit". As I understand it the
> legal problem is when it comes to the binaries produced from your
> sources because their distribution will violate the GNU GPL.
>
> That's why most of the binary distros dropped your packet. On the other
> hand Gentoo and the other source based distros don't have the same
> problem, because they don't distribute binaries.

This is the lies spread by the people around Eduard Bloch.

The truth is that if these people _really_ believe their claim, they would 
need to take cdrkit offline immediately because it includes even more of the
same "violations" claimed by Bloch & Co against the original project.

Let me give you a simple example: they claim that a GPLd source may only be 
compiled using GPLd build system and that the build system needs to be part of 
the source. Well, the second claim is correct, but they do not include the build
system used for cdrkit in the cdrkit source.

They even replaced the original build system by just another build system that 
is not under GPL too.

The people around Bloch are contradicting themselves and nobody seems to care 
about the truth.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list