[gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[KH]

Hi,

after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge 
cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and 
kino. Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.

!!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
!!! Please check permissions and directories for broken symlinks.
!!! You may start the merge process again by using ebuild:
!!! ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild 
merge
!!! And finish by running this: env-update


than there is a very long list I can post if needed.

ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/scg
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 25 12:48 /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> 
/usr/include/scsilib/usal

on my xterm there is red highlighting under the output.

What can I do to install cdrtools correctly to a working standard?


Will I be able to emerge kino again, without cdrkit?

Thanks for any help

kh
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1485 bytes --]

* KH (gentoo-user@konstantinhansen.de) [05.07.08 13:24]:
> Hi,
>
> after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge 
> cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and kino. 
> Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
>
> !!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
> !!! Please check permissions and directories for broken symlinks.
> !!! You may start the merge process again by using ebuild:
> !!! ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild 
> merge
> !!! And finish by running this: env-update
>
>
> than there is a very long list I can post if needed.
>
> ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/scg
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 25 12:48 /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> 
> /usr/include/scsilib/usal
>
> on my xterm there is red highlighting under the output.
>
> What can I do to install cdrtools correctly to a working standard?

If I'm not mistaken, it means there is a dangling symlink.

if 
# ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/usal
shows something like no such file or directory, then 
# rm /usr/include/scsilib/scg
and continue as above mentioned with
# ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild merge

HTH
Sebastian

P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
# emerge -pvt kino
afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:

> P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
> # emerge -pvt kino
> afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.

I don't have cdrkit on my systems and it does not seem to have a dependency 
for kino:

# emerge -pvt kino

These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ] media-video/kino-1.2.0  USE="alsa dvdr gstreamer quicktime 
vorbis -gpac -lame -sox" 10,388 kB 
[ebuild  N    ]  media-sound/rawrec-0.9.98  60 kB 
[ebuild  N    ]  media-libs/libiec61883-1.1.0  USE="-examples" 359 kB 
[ebuild  N    ]  sys-libs/libavc1394-0.5.3  0 kB 
[ebuild  N    ]  media-libs/libdv-1.0.0-r2  USE="sdl xv -debug" 0 kB 
[ebuild  N    ]  sys-libs/libraw1394-1.2.1  0 kB 

Total: 6 packages (6 new), Size of downloads: 10,806 kB

A revdep-rebuild -X -p -v would probably resolve the OP's problem.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[KH]

Mick schrieb:
> On Saturday 05 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:
>
>   
>> P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
>> # emerge -pvt kino
>> afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.
>>     
>
> I don't have cdrkit on my systems and it does not seem to have a dependency 
> for kino:
>
> # emerge -pvt kino
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N    ] media-video/kino-1.2.0  USE="alsa dvdr gstreamer quicktime 
> vorbis -gpac -lame -sox" 10,388 kB 
> [ebuild  N    ]  media-sound/rawrec-0.9.98  60 kB 
> [ebuild  N    ]  media-libs/libiec61883-1.1.0  USE="-examples" 359 kB 
> [ebuild  N    ]  sys-libs/libavc1394-0.5.3  0 kB 
> [ebuild  N    ]  media-libs/libdv-1.0.0-r2  USE="sdl xv -debug" 0 kB 
> [ebuild  N    ]  sys-libs/libraw1394-1.2.1  0 kB 
>
> Total: 6 packages (6 new), Size of downloads: 10,806 kB
>
> A revdep-rebuild -X -p -v would probably resolve the OP's problem.
>   
Hi,

you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools. 
And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit 
seems to "steal" the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.

emerge -av kino               

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/libavc1394-0.5.3  348 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-libs/libsamplerate-0.1.2-r1  USE="-fftw -sndfile" 
692 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-libs/libiec61883-1.1.0  USE="-examples" 359 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-video/dvdauthor-0.6.11  0 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-sound/rawrec-0.9.98  60 kB
[ebuild  N    ] app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools-7.1  138 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-video/mjpegtools-1.8.0-r1  USE="X dv gtk png 
quicktime sse -3dnow -dga (-mmx) -sdl -v4l -yv12" 1,446 kB
[ebuild  N    ] media-video/kino-1.2.0  USE="alsa dvdr lame quicktime 
vorbis -gpac -gstreamer -sox" 0 kB

Total: 8 packages (8 new), Size of downloads: 3,040 kB

Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]

kh


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:

> you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
> And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
> seems to "steal" the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.

*rolleyes* it is not 'stealing' but 'virtuals'. You might want to look them 
up.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:

> On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:
>
> > you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
> > And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
> > seems to "steal" the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.
>
> *rolleyes* it is not 'stealing' but 'virtuals'. You might want to look them 
> up.

cdrkit is not allowed to use the names "cdrecord", "cdda2wav", "mkisofs" and 
similar.

In addition: grosisofs depends on features that are in the original software 
but not in the clone. 

Why do you believe that you may install cdrkit instead of cdrtools?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:
> > > you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
> > > And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
> > > seems to "steal" the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.
> >
> > *rolleyes* it is not 'stealing' but 'virtuals'. You might want to look
> > them up.
>
> cdrkit is not allowed to use the names "cdrecord", "cdda2wav", "mkisofs"
> and similar.

AFAIK it doesn't. There might be some symlinks created. Ask someone using 
cdrkit.

>
> In addition: grosisofs depends on features that are in the original
> software but not in the clone.

in that case it should have a 'hard' dependency on cdrtools and not the the 
virtual.

>
> Why do you believe that you may install cdrkit instead of cdrtools?

I don't believe anything. There is a concept called 'virtuals' in gentoo. If 
several pieces of software are able fill the same 'void', they are grouped 
into a virtual and the user can choose which one he wants to use. Freedom of 
choice is important for gentoo. There are of course defaults, if some package 
is is 'sane', so that the user does not have to babysit long emerges and other 
reasons. But cdrecord/cdrkit is not the only example. Just have a look at 
/usr/portage/profiles/..../virtuals there are several. And lo and behold, some 
virtuals have cdrtools set as default for the corresponding virtual.

find /usr/portage/profiles -name virtuals -exec cat {} \;

gives you a lot of hits. You can ask the responsible devs why/if cdrkit is the 
default. If you ask politly I am sure they will answer.


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[KH]

Sebastian Günther schrieb:
> * KH (gentoo-user@konstantinhansen.de) [05.07.08 13:24]:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge 
>> cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and kino. 
>> Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
>>
>> !!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
>> !!! Please check permissions and directories for broken symlinks.
>> !!! You may start the merge process again by using ebuild:
>> !!! ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild 
>> merge
>> !!! And finish by running this: env-update
>>
>>
>> than there is a very long list I can post if needed.
>>
>> ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/scg
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 25 12:48 /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> 
>> /usr/include/scsilib/usal
>>
>> on my xterm there is red highlighting under the output.
>>
>> What can I do to install cdrtools correctly to a working standard?
>>     
>
> If I'm not mistaken, it means there is a dangling symlink.
>
> if 
> # ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/usal
> shows something like no such file or directory, then 
> # rm /usr/include/scsilib/scg
> and continue as above mentioned with
> # ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild merge
>
> HTH
> Sebastian
>
> P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
> # emerge -pvt kino
> afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.
>
>   

Hi,
thanks for the help. looks like it is working now. I did not have the 
ebuild any more (tmpfs) but emerge did fine.
kh
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Pielmeier]

KH schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge 
> cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and 
> kino. Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
> 
> !!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
> !!! Please check permissions and directories for broken symlinks.
> !!! You may start the merge process again by using ebuild:
> !!! ebuild /usr/portage/app-cdr/cdrtools/cdrtools-2.01.01_alpha34.ebuild 
> merge
> !!! And finish by running this: env-update
> 
> 
> than there is a very long list I can post if needed.
> 
> ls -lah /usr/include/scsilib/scg
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 25 12:48 /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> 
> /usr/include/scsilib/usal
> 
> on my xterm there is red highlighting under the output.
> 
> What can I do to install cdrtools correctly to a working standard?
> 
> 
> Will I be able to emerge kino again, without cdrkit?
> 
> Thanks for any help
> 
> kh

So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
/usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and the cdrtools installation
can not overwrite the link. If the output is really red it is indeed a
broken symlink and you can safely remove it, then try to install
cdrtools again or use the proposed commands.

It should be no problem to install kino again as cdrkit provides the
same functionality like cdrtools, besides the different amount of
development that happens on both projects. But i think there was no need
to remove kino at all when switching to cdrtools, because it has no
dependency on both apps.

I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
i could not find out why. There is nothing in the profiles which defines
how cdrkit is favored. Maybe someone can point me to the right location.

I think cdrtools should be preferred and not the fork cdrkit!

My make profile points to
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/2008.0.

Regards,

Daniel



-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

>
> I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
> because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
> have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
> i could not find out why. 

k is before t in the alphabet?


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> 
>> I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
>> because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
>> have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
>> i could not find out why. 
> 
> k is before t in the alphabet?
> 
> 

Probably :-)

In the 2007.0 desktop profile it was the default application, but i can 
not find something similar for the 2008.0 profile

Here are the contents of 
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2007.0/desktop/virtuals

# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2
# $Header: 
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/x86/2007.0/desktop/virtuals,v 
1.1 2007/04/13 22:02:31 wolf31o2 Exp $

virtual/cdrtools	app-cdr/cdrkit
virtual/fam		app-admin/gamin


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:

> So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
> installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
> /usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
> been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and the cdrtools installation
> can not overwrite the link. If the output is really red it is indeed a
> broken symlink and you can safely remove it, then try to install
> cdrtools again or use the proposed commands.

Mmmm, cdrtools may create a directory /usr/include/scg/ but the text /scsilib/
is nowhere in cdrtools.

> It should be no problem to install kino again as cdrkit provides the
> same functionality like cdrtools, besides the different amount of

There is no active development in cdrkit, so cdrkit does not provide new 
features. If cdrkit did not change libscg in a way that prevents some usage, 
you could treat cdrkit like a 3 year old version of cdrtools.

> development that happens on both projects. But i think there was no need
> to remove kino at all when switching to cdrtools, because it has no
> dependency on both apps.

This is correct.

I don't know kino but from looking at freshmeat, it seems that kino has no 
relation to cdrtools. Or does kino call "mkisofs"?



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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Joerg Schilling schrieb:
> Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
>> installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
>> /usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
>> been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and the cdrtools installation
>> can not overwrite the link. If the output is really red it is indeed a
>> broken symlink and you can safely remove it, then try to install
>> cdrtools again or use the proposed commands.
> 
> Mmmm, cdrtools may create a directory /usr/include/scg/ but the text /scsilib/
> is nowhere in cdrtools.

In Gentoo scg is installed under /usr/include/scsilib

Here a snippet from the ebuild:

insinto /usr/include/scsilib/scg
doins include/scg/*.h

/usr/include/scsilib/scg -> /usr/include/scsilib/usal is a symlink used
by cdrkit. It was not removed when the package manager uninstalled
cdrkit. At least I think so, as this does not happen here but maybe with
older versions I don't use.

When installing cdrtools the package manager wants to create the
directory /usr/include/scsilib/scg which fails as the broken symlink is
still in place.

>> It should be no problem to install kino again as cdrkit provides the
>> same functionality like cdrtools, besides the different amount of
> 
> There is no active development in cdrkit, so cdrkit does not provide new 
> features. If cdrkit did not change libscg in a way that prevents some usage, 
> you could treat cdrkit like a 3 year old version of cdrtools.

I don't know how much work really happens with cdrkit as I don't follow
the progress there. It seems however you have done more work on cdrtools
than what happened on cdrkit besides finalizing star 1.5.

By the way I for myself say many thanks for cdrtools. I don't care much
about the license as long it is not closed source and I can use it
within my OS. I just care about the quality of the code.

>> development that happens on both projects. But i think there was no need
>> to remove kino at all when switching to cdrtools, because it has no
>> dependency on both apps.
> 
> This is correct.
> 
> I don't know kino but from looking at freshmeat, it seems that kino has no 
> relation to cdrtools. Or does kino call "mkisofs"?

You are right, it depends on dvd+rw-tools maybe because of this the OP
has removed it from his system temporarily along with cdrkit and
dvd+rw-tools.

Regards,

Daniel


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Joerg Schilling schrieb:
> > Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
> >> installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
> >> /usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
> >> been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and the cdrtools installation
> >> can not overwrite the link. If the output is really red it is indeed a
> >> broken symlink and you can safely remove it, then try to install
> >> cdrtools again or use the proposed commands.
> > 
> > Mmmm, cdrtools may create a directory /usr/include/scg/ but the text /scsilib/
> > is nowhere in cdrtools.
>
> In Gentoo scg is installed under /usr/include/scsilib
>
> Here a snippet from the ebuild:
>
> insinto /usr/include/scsilib/scg
> doins include/scg/*.h
>
> /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> /usr/include/scsilib/usal is a symlink used
> by cdrkit. It was not removed when the package manager uninstalled
> cdrkit. At least I think so, as this does not happen here but maybe with
> older versions I don't use.

This is a really bad idea. 

/usr/include/scg/ is a planned directory that is known to be unique.

cdrkit does not deliver anything that is even approximately useful as a 
replacement for libscg.

Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg makes them
unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location. It seems that 
the only result is that it makes it harder to install cdrtools instread of 
cdrkit.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:

>
> Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg makes
> them unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location. 

wrong. It is easy to tell software which needs/wants that headers the right 
directory. If there is a problem, a bug is opened. Easy.

I am sure all software in gentoo needing this headers is fully aware of the 
location.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Joerg Schilling schrieb:
> Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Joerg Schilling schrieb:
>>> Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
>>>> installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
>>>> /usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
>>>> been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and the cdrtools installation
>>>> can not overwrite the link. If the output is really red it is indeed a
>>>> broken symlink and you can safely remove it, then try to install
>>>> cdrtools again or use the proposed commands.
>>> Mmmm, cdrtools may create a directory /usr/include/scg/ but the text /scsilib/
>>> is nowhere in cdrtools.
>> In Gentoo scg is installed under /usr/include/scsilib
>>
>> Here a snippet from the ebuild:
>>
>> insinto /usr/include/scsilib/scg
>> doins include/scg/*.h
>>
>> /usr/include/scsilib/scg -> /usr/include/scsilib/usal is a symlink used
>> by cdrkit. It was not removed when the package manager uninstalled
>> cdrkit. At least I think so, as this does not happen here but maybe with
>> older versions I don't use.
> 
> This is a really bad idea. 
> 
> /usr/include/scg/ is a planned directory that is known to be unique.
> 
> cdrkit does not deliver anything that is even approximately useful as a 
> replacement for libscg.
> 
> Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg makes them
> unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location. It seems that 
> the only result is that it makes it harder to install cdrtools instread of 
> cdrkit.
> 
> Jörg
> 

Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not 
created at all. The command i used was

./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2008/7/5, Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com>:
> Joerg Schilling schrieb:
> >
> > This is a really bad idea.
> > /usr/include/scg/ is a planned directory that is known to be unique.
> >
> > cdrkit does not deliver anything that is even approximately useful as a
> replacement for libscg.
> >
> > Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg
> makes them
> > unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location. It seems
> that the only result is that it makes it harder to install cdrtools instread
> of cdrkit.
> >
> > Jörg
> >
> >
>
> Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
> created at all. The command i used was
>
> ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
>

Returning to the technical side, I would really want to know why
/usr/include/scg is not installed. I tried Gmake and also tried smake,
but in both cases the libscg includes are not installed to the target
directory! Am I doing something wrong here?

Regards,

Daniel

Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not 
> created at all. The command i used was
>
> ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install

Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do 
something while you told it to do something else?

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

Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
> Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
> > created at all. The command i used was
> >
> > ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
>
> Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do
> something while you told it to do something else?

No this is no joke at all!

I should have said $INS_BASE/include/scg was not created at all.

What i meant with the first question is that the libscg headers are
not copied to the install destination.Sorry if I expressed this wrong
in my first question.

Regards,

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: SCG (was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

"Daniel Pielmeier" <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
> > Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
> > > created at all. The command i used was
> > >
> > > ./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
> >
> > Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do
> > something while you told it to do something else?
>
> No this is no joke at all!
>
> I should have said $INS_BASE/include/scg was not created at all.
>
> What i meant with the first question is that the libscg headers are
> not copied to the install destination.Sorry if I expressed this wrong
> in my first question.

OK, this is a missing makefile.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 866 bytes --]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:14:17 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

> I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
> because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
> have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
> i could not find out why. There is nothing in the profiles which defines
> how cdrkit is favored. Maybe someone can point me to the right location.

It is defined in the virtuals file in your profile.

> I think cdrtools should be preferred and not the fork cdrkit!

It depends on the profile, some default to cdrkit, some to cdrtools:

grep virtual/cdrtools /usr/portage/profiles/**/virtuals


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We are Pentium of Borg.  You will be approximated.  Resistance may or may
not be futile, except on every other Tuesday when it is a definite maybe.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:14:17 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> 
>> I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
>> because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
>> have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
>> i could not find out why. There is nothing in the profiles which defines
>> how cdrkit is favored. Maybe someone can point me to the right location.
> 
> It is defined in the virtuals file in your profile.
> 
>> I think cdrtools should be preferred and not the fork cdrkit!
> 
> It depends on the profile, some default to cdrkit, some to cdrtools:
> 
> grep virtual/cdrtools /usr/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
> 
> 

grep virtual/cdrtools 
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/cdrtools 
app-cdr/cdrkit

That was what i am looking for, thanks! Why they did choose cdrkit in
favor of cdrtools is a miracle to me! Maybe I will ask the maintainer
about this!

Regards,

Daniel




-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 05 July 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> grep virtual/cdrtools
> /media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
> /media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/cdr
>tools app-cdr/cdrkit
>
> That was what i am looking for, thanks! Why they did choose cdrkit in
> favor of cdrtools is a miracle to me! Maybe I will ask the maintainer
> about this!

Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same - 
licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the 
superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community feel 
that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk, regardless of what Joerg 
(cdrtools maintainer) asserts in this matter.

But lets not start this useless debate all over again and simply 
acknowledge that some Gentoo dev made a decision and leave it at that.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[KH]

Alan McKinnon schrieb:
> On Saturday 05 July 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>   
>> grep virtual/cdrtools
>> /media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
>> /media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/cdr
>> tools app-cdr/cdrkit
>>
>> That was what i am looking for, thanks! Why they did choose cdrkit in
>> favor of cdrtools is a miracle to me! Maybe I will ask the maintainer
>> about this!
>>     
>
> Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same - 
> licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the 
> superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community feel 
> that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk, regardless of what Joerg 
> (cdrtools maintainer) asserts in this matter.
>
> But lets not start this useless debate all over again and simply 
> acknowledge that some Gentoo dev made a decision and leave it at that.
>
>   
http://gentoo-portage.com/app-cdr/cdrtools

the link under license is leading to nowhere. On the project page I have 
not been able to find a license, too (fast overview).

Where can I find the license?

KH
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

* KH (gentoo-user@konstantinhansen.de) [06.07.08 10:33]:
>
> the link under license is leading to nowhere. On the project page I have 
> not been able to find a license, too (fast overview).
>
> Where can I find the license?
>

All licenses can be found under:
/usr/portage/licenses/

And emerge -s cdrtools shows you which files you have to read.

And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the 
licenses in one project. 

> KH

HTH
Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the 
> licenses in one project. 

Your problem is not to understand the difference between "project"
and "distribution".

I recommend _you_ to read the license indormation that comes with cdrtools and 
please do not start a new license debate that leads to nowhere.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1717 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [06.07.08 12:44]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> > And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the 
> > licenses in one project. 
> 
> Your problem is not to understand the difference between "project"
> and "distribution".
> 
Sorry, wrong term. You're right, the problem is about distributions.

"This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's 
similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it 
incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL 
and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We 
urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason."

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

And this is the problem, that e.g. Debian has.

This is just a very short explaination to the poster, who has asked for 
where to find the licenses!

*No need to debate*

> I recommend _you_ to read the license indormation that comes with cdrtools and 
> please do not start a new license debate that leads to nowhere.
> 

I won't read anything related to cdrtools anymore. I won't install it, 
nor recommend anyone to use it.

And this is not about any licensing issue, it is about your way of 
*communicating*.

I still remember the time, when I had to download some license key to 
get DVDs burned. That was also pretty annoying.

> Jörg
> 

You just did yourself *again* what the Germans call "Bärendienst"

One pissed of soul
Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> * Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [06.07.08 12:44]:
> > Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the 
> > > licenses in one project. 
> > 
> > Your problem is not to understand the difference between "project"
> > and "distribution".
> > 
> Sorry, wrong term. You're right, the problem is about distributions.
>
> "This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's 
> similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it 
> incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL 
> and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We 
> urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason."
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
> And this is the problem, that e.g. Debian has.

		Please finally stop this FUD!

FUD stays FUD even if it is spread by the FSF.......

If the GPL did forbid to link non-GPL cpde together wit GPL code, then the GPL 
was dead from it's beginning.

Note that the whole GPL does not use the word "linking" anywhere in the GPL text.

The GPL is asymmetric and _only_ discallows you to create derived work from GPLd
code that is not under GPL. 

The GPL does _not_ forbid to have GPLd code that is a derived work from NON-GPLd
code.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 06 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:
> I won't read anything related to cdrtools anymore. I won't install
> it, nor recommend anyone to use it.

That is indeed your right, but please do so in the full knowledge that 
cdrtools is vastly superior to anything else out there for any OS. No 
matter what anyone thinks of it's author, cdrtools kinda just works 
right every time. And, every time Joerg gives a purely technical answer 
to a purely technical question in this area, he's kinda spot on 
virtually every time...

Food for thought. I believe we should all keep in mind that the code and 
the man are very separate things, and that Gentoo is a source distro. 
Meaning we don't have redistribution issues. It's entirely possible to 
build and use cdrtools on Gentoo in a manner consistent with it's 
author's intent.

> And this is not about any licensing issue, it is about your way of
> *communicating*.

Ah, but the CDDL does not require you to listen to the author or to 
communicate back to the author.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

KH <gentoo-user@konstantinhansen.de> wrote:

> http://gentoo-portage.com/app-cdr/cdrtools
>
> the link under license is leading to nowhere. On the project page I have 
> not been able to find a license, too (fast overview).
>
> Where can I find the license?

e.g. here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same - 
> licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the 
> superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community feel 
> that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk, regardless of what Joerg 
> (cdrtools maintainer) asserts in this matter.

I am sorry to see that you are still a victim of a _few_ OSS trolls.

People who use their own brain should have no problem to understand that
applying the claims from those few Debian trolls (made against cdrtools) to 
cdrkit also would make cdrkit of course illegal.

Legal thoughts have similarities to mathemathics. If you make a claim that is 
incompatible with reality, this claim cannot be correct. None of the claims 
published by these OSS trolls is compatible with reality.


> But lets not start this useless debate all over again and simply 
> acknowledge that some Gentoo dev made a decision and leave it at that.

Why then do you start a debate based on obviously wrong claims?



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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same -
> > licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the
> > superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community
> > feel that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk, regardless of what
> > Joerg (cdrtools maintainer) asserts in this matter.
>
> I am sorry to see that you are still a victim of a _few_ OSS trolls.

Joerg, please, for the love of all that is holy and small furry animals, 
let it go.

The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default. I 
answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point of view 
of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about what I think in 
the matter, and I won't as it is in no way relevant.

[snip]

> > But lets not start this useless debate all over again and simply
> > acknowledge that some Gentoo dev made a decision and leave it at
> > that.
>
> Why then do you start a debate based on obviously wrong claims?

I'm not starting anything. See above.

As a token of respect for all the work you have done for many years with 
optical media and for your impressive level of coding competence, I am 
not going to fight with you and will instead simply ask you to drop 
this now. You have been given an audience here, you have been granted 
ample and fair opportunity to state your position and you have done so. 
No-one reading this list for the last fortnight is in any doubt about 
your point of view. Some agree with you, some don't. 

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default. I 
> answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point of view 
> of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about what I think in 
> the matter, and I won't as it is in no way relevant.

Could you explain me why you started to publish incorrect claims about cdrtools?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Willie Wong]

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 06:21:42PM +0200, Penguin Lover Joerg Schilling squawked:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default. I 
> > answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point of view 
> > of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about what I think in 
> > the matter, and I won't as it is in no way relevant.
> 
> Could you explain me why you started to publish incorrect claims about cdrtools?

Look Joerg, this is getting tiring. I don't know if the problem you
have is with English language or with social communication, but Alan
went out of his way and bent over backwards in his post to prevent
a response like the one you just gave. It was very clear from his
original post that he answered the OP's question with (I paraphrase
here)

  "Joerg is a coding God. But the maintainer in gentoo for the
  cdrtools package thinks that there is a license problem, following
  Debian's lead, so virtual/cdrtools defaults to cdrkit."

Alan was not stating a fact about cdrtools. He was stating a fact
about what a gentoo developer thinks. It is great and all that legal
science and mathematics are both based on logic, but Alan has
absolutely no control about what logic the developer uses. Nor do
you, for this matter. If you have beef with the way cdrtools is
treated, take it up with the gentoo developer that actually makes the
decision to default to cdrkit and try to convince *him* that there is
a problem with his interpretation. 

As far as I can tell, neither Alan nor I gives a hoot about the
license issue, and we chose to use cdrtools because we feel that it is
better code. Yelling at us will not get your problem solved. In fact,
yelling at people who support using your code may just be the way to
reduce said support. 

W
-- 
Pintsize: I'm the foreman! The couch needs to movesix inches to the
    left to achieve maximum fen shui!
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 576 days, 15:57
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Willie Wong <wwong@Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> a response like the one you just gave. It was very clear from his
> original post that he answered the OP's question with (I paraphrase
> here)
>
>   "Joerg is a coding God. But the maintainer in gentoo for the
>   cdrtools package thinks that there is a license problem, following
>   Debian's lead, so virtual/cdrtools defaults to cdrkit."
>
> Alan was not stating a fact about cdrtools. He was stating a fact
> about what a gentoo developer thinks. It is great and all that legal
> science and mathematics are both based on logic, but Alan has
> absolutely no control about what logic the developer uses. Nor do
> you, for this matter. If you have beef with the way cdrtools is
> treated, take it up with the gentoo developer that actually makes the
> decision to default to cdrkit and try to convince *him* that there is
> a problem with his interpretation. 

It may be a general problem with social relations in the english language.... 

If you quote a false claim and do not inform people that the quoted claim
is wrong, then you indirerctly support the false claim.

I recommend to simply not quote people that claim there is a problem as lawyers 
verified that there is no problem. 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default.
> > I answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point
> > of view of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about
> > what I think in the matter, and I won't as it is in no way
> > relevant.
>
> Could you explain me why you started to publish incorrect claims
> about cdrtools?

Jörg,

Easy. In the abstract: person X performed action Y with regard to 
cdrtools for reason Z. I felt it important to understand Z in order to 
fully understand Y.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default.
> > > I answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point
> > > of view of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about
> > > what I think in the matter, and I won't as it is in no way
> > > relevant.
> >
> > Could you explain me why you started to publish incorrect claims
> > about cdrtools?
>
> Jörg,
>
> Easy. In the abstract: person X performed action Y with regard to 
> cdrtools for reason Z. I felt it important to understand Z in order to 
> fully understand Y.

Do you know what defamation and slander is?

If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no problem.
It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying "messages".......



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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mark Kirkwood]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>   
>>
>> Easy. In the abstract: person X performed action Y with regard to 
>> cdrtools for reason Z. I felt it important to understand Z in order to 
>> fully understand Y.
>>     
>
> Do you know what defamation and slander is?
>
> If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no problem.
> It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying "messages".......
>
>
>
>
>   

Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of the matter. Your mention 
of lawyers does not change this - as legal opinion is merely an opinion 
that costs some money! (if your lawyer says !Z it does not stop another 
one saying Z)...

regards

Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> > Do you know what defamation and slander is?
> >
> > If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no problem.
> > It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying "messages".......
>
> Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of the matter. Your mention 
> of lawyers does not change this - as legal opinion is merely an opinion 
> that costs some money! (if your lawyer says !Z it does not stop another 
> one saying Z)...


Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to 
influence the freedom of others.



Long answer:

If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if 
your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless 
you are able to definitely prove it!

I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person 
who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem.


Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have 
ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed 
that there were exactly two problems:

Claim 1:	"The CDDL is not a free license"

Reality:	The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the
		end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his
		remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the
		CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006.


Claim 2:	"The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"

Reality:	The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source
		and replaced the original build system by a build system
		that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause
		BSDl). "All animals are equal but some animals are more
		equal than others"?

You should be very careful when you repeat the claims from people who 
repeatedly published _obvious_ false claims in order to harm the cdrtools 
project.

BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by 
laymen. 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3166 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 11:17]:
> 
> Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to 
> influence the freedom of others.
> 

No, that's anarchy you describing, in democracy the majority decides 
were your personal freedom ends.

> 
> 
> Long answer:
> 
> If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and if 
> your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless 
> you are able to definitely prove it!
> 

What!?
If I state the opinion of, let's say Angela Merkel, in an discussion 
were only her opposites were mentioned, to let the reader build her own 
opinion, I make it my opinion? Just because I hold the reader from a 
long googling session?

This is not correct: As long as I quote, indirect speech *is* quoting, 
this is not my opinion.

BTW: I repeat your opinion by quoting you, do I therefor make it to my 
opinion?

> I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person 
> who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no problem.
> 
> 
> Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have 
> ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed 
> that there were exactly two problems:
> 
> Claim 1:	"The CDDL is not a free license"
> 
Please referrence where that claim is made, i could not find it.

> Reality:	The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the
> 		end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his
> 		remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the
> 		CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006.
> 
There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian:

"Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular 
packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general 
explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under 
a "free" license with some other aspect that makes it non-free."
					http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.en.html

> 
> Claim 2:	"The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"
> 
It is about linking, as part of the build process.

> Reality:	The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source
> 		and replaced the original build system by a build system
> 		that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause
> 		BSDl). "All animals are equal but some animals are more
> 		equal than others"?
> 

4clauseBSD *is* compatible with GPL, whereas CDDL is not.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD

> BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by 
> laymen. 
> 

As long as you not provide *any* other proove to a lawyers opinion, than 
your own word, I see this as your opinion, which is also a claim by a 
laymen. (A link would do...)

> Jörg
> 

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian:
>
> "Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular 
> packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general 
> explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under 
> a "free" license with some other aspect that makes it non-free."
> 					http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.en.html

Why then did Debian decide around August 2006 that the CDDL is generally accepted?


> > 
> > Claim 2:	"The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"
> > 
> It is about linking, as part of the build process.

Please do not try to confuse people with FUD.

The main claim from Eduard Bloch on why there should be a problem with cdrtools
was of course:

Claim 2:	"The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
> Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have
> ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed
> that there were exactly two problems:
>
> Claim 1:        "The CDDL is not a free license"
>
> Reality:        The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the
>                end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his
>                remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the
>                CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006.
>
>
> Claim 2:        "The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"
>
> Reality:        The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source
>                and replaced the original build system by a build system
>                that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause
>                BSDl). "All animals are equal but some animals are more
>                equal than others"?
>
> You should be very careful when you repeat the claims from people who
> repeatedly published _obvious_ false claims in order to harm the cdrtools
> project.
>
> BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by
> laymen.

Sorry, Jörg, cdrkit does not claim any of this above. The only claim
they have is that the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL [1]
_according to the FSF_. According to _cdrkits own document_ [1] they
do not claim that the CDDL is not a free license. I also don't think
the cmake build system can not be used with cdrkit as the 4clause BSD
licencse has been declared compatible with the GPL [2] _by the FSF_ in
contrary to the CDDL. So the only thing is that the debian people are
FSF oriented and thus have dropped cdrtools. But as far as i know
Debian was always a bit fanatic in such concerns and I don't give much
about this as I don't think the FSF is the ultimate source of all
truth.

[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

"Daniel Pielmeier" <daniel.pielmeier@googlemail.com> wrote:

I am sorry to see that you try to write FUD:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=file&rev=0&sc=0

of course verifies my claim. 

They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it
with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in 
the source.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

> They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced
> it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not
> included in the source.

Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). 
Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? 
Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the 
distributed source package?

cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license 
which is said to be GPL compatible. 

Could you please explain why you think that the cdrkit+buildsystem is illegal? 
With references, please.


- Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> > They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced
> > it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not
> > included in the source.
>
> Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). 
> Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? 
> Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the 
> distributed source package?
>
> cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license 
> which is said to be GPL compatible. 

Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl!


Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the GPL.
But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's software.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:30:06 schwätzte Joerg Schilling:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they
> > > replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it
> > > is not included in the source.
> >
> > Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source
> > (CMakeLists.txt). Does any program that uses autotools come with the
> > complete build system? Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to
> > be included in the distributed source package?
> >
> > cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD
> > license which is said to be GPL compatible.
>
> Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl!

http://www.cmake.org

Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, 
for example. 

Now please point to a cmake with a 4 clause BSDl! Please Jörg, tell us where 
you see a legal problem with cdrkit. 


> Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the
> GPL. But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's
> software.
Who is "they"? And can you please quote them and give a reference? AFAIK the 
build system does not need to be GPL and it's not illegal to change a license 
if the license itself permits it. But that's not the issue here. 


Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> > Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl!
>
> http://www.cmake.org
>
> Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, 
> for example. 

Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.

The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter.
At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the original buildsystem by cmake,
cmake was definitely under a 4 clause BSDL.


I am sorry that you do not see that Bloch & Co. is just ridiculous with his 
claims. Instead of understanding that _I_ do not have a problem with a non GPL
buildsystem (in contrary to Mr. Bloch, I did read the GPL) you and others 
started a ridiculous thread.

Could you please finally stop this ridiculous "discussion"?

We will end up nowhere if we follow the false claims from Mr. Bloch.

If you however like to have a fruitful discussion, you should know that a way 
to disprove a claim is to verify that conclusions from the claim are wrong.
What I did is nothing but to prove that Mr. Bloch is highly self contradicting.

You need to learn that this disproves his credibility and should finally 
understand that the other claims from Mr. Bloch are the same nonsense as his
claim with the build system.


cmake-2.4.8/Copyright.txt
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
CMake was initially developed by Kitware with the following sponsorship:

 * National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health
   as part of the Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit (ITK).

 * US National Labs (Los Alamos, Livermore, Sandia) ASC Parallel 
   Visualization Initiative.

 * National Alliance for Medical Image Computing (NAMIC) is funded by the
   National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research,
   Grant U54 EB005149.

 * Kitware, Inc.

The CMake copyright is as follows:

Copyright (c) 2002 Kitware, Inc., Insight Consortium
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

 * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
   and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

 * The names of Kitware, Inc., the Insight Consortium, or the names of
   any consortium members, or of any contributors, may not be used to
   endorse or promote products derived from this software without
   specific prior written permission.

 * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
   not be misrepresented as being the original software.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS''
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

See also the CMake web site: http://www.cmake.org for more information.
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Arttu V.]

On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.

Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
clause represents the original "GPL-incompatible" advertising clause?
IANAL, but I cannot see that clause in there.

What I think they've done is they've made their yet another own fork
of the BSDL by slicing the last clause of the 3-clause BSDL into two
and sprinkling some Apache-licensisch "do not smear original name"
stuff in there. Stupid, possibly, confusing, certainly, but most
likely *not* the original 4-clause BSDL.

-- 
Arttu V.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

"Arttu V." <arttuv69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
>
> Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
> clause represents the original "GPL-incompatible" advertising clause?
> IANAL, but I cannot see that clause in there.

The 3 clause BSDL is not more "GPL compatible" than the 4 clause BSDl.

RMS was just unwilling to advertize if he did take other people's code.


BTW: The 4 clause BSDL helped UCB to win the case against AT&T.....

But the whole discussion here is a dead end. If people (including you) try to 
derail a discussion that used some arguments just as a style element to prove 
that Bloch/Debian is wrong, we will never get to a useful result.

I was mentioning "cmake" only to prove that Bloch is highly self contradicting
and that "cdrkit" would of couse be illegal _iff_ the claims he made against 
cdrtools were correct.

 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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 10:26:40 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> "Arttu V." <arttuv69@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
> >
> > Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
> > clause represents the original "GPL-incompatible" advertising clause?
> > IANAL, but I cannot see that clause in there.
>
> The 3 clause BSDL is not more "GPL compatible" than the 4 clause BSDl.
Why not? The FSF itself claims that it is compatible, do you claim it's not? 
Where do you see problems?

Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

Heyho,

> > Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in
> > cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example.
>
> Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
>
> The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter.
> At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the original buildsystem by
> cmake, cmake was definitely under a 4 clause BSDL.

This is the 4th clause:

 * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
   not be misrepresented as being the original software.

It does NOT make it the incompatible 4 clause BSDl. And I doubt that makes it 
incompatible with the GPL at all.
Please read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Lizenz and compare. Do you still 
hold your claim?

> If you however like to have a fruitful discussion, you should know that a
> way to disprove a claim is to verify that conclusions from the claim are
> wrong. What I did is nothing but to prove that Mr. Bloch is highly self
> contradicting.
You did not prove anything yet. You still need to prove that cdrkit is illegal 
otherwise me and others will still believe that it's just a lot of FUD from 
you. Feel free to prove us wrong.

> You need to learn that this disproves his credibility and should finally
> understand that the other claims from Mr. Bloch are the same nonsense as
> his claim with the build system.
While you still need to provide some proof of the single fact that you base 
your whole flame on, I won't believe anything. Especially I won't mistrust a 
whole person because of that. I don't have an opinion until I'm convinced. 

- Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> Heyho,
...
a lot of new FUD 

> you. Feel free to prove us wrong.

I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses
"majestatis pluralis" for his claims.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 21:04:15 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> > Heyho,
>
> ...
> a lot of new FUD
>
> > you. Feel free to prove us wrong.
>
> I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses
> "majestatis pluralis" for his claims.
I does not make much sense to answer persons either, that does not read and 
understand all the sentences I wrote.

I wrote "me and others" so the "us" is grammatically correct.

Would you please come back to the topic now?


- Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>>> They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced
>>> it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not
>>> included in the source.
>> Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source (CMakeLists.txt). 
>> Does any program that uses autotools come with the complete build system? 
>> Where does the GPL say that the buildsystem has to be included in the 
>> distributed source package?
>>
>> cdrkit uses cmake to build and that's available under a 3-clause BSD license 
>> which is said to be GPL compatible. 
> 
> Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl!

http://www.cmake.org/HTML/index.html, under License, says:

CMake is distributed under BSD License

     Copyright (c) 2008, Kitware, Inc.
     All rights reserved.

> Also note: They claim that the build system needs to be published under the GPL.
> But it is obviously illegal to change the license of other people's software.

1. The email that *you* quoted in *your* defense clearly points out the 
incorrectness of your claim.  The exact words were:

"For our fork we used the last GPL-licensed version of the program code
from Cdrtools [5] and killed the incompatibly licensed build system."

I assume that your build scripts, like everything else in your cdrtools 
package that you have control over, are licensed under the CDDL.  (I 
can't confirm as the tarballs seem to be missing from your FTP site.) 
That is what the Debian maintainers are referring to as the 
"incompatible build system".  They have replaced it with CMake *build 
scripts* that are GPL licensed.

2. The BSD license makes it legal to re-release the code under a 
different license as long as the copyright notice is retained, so you're 
wrong on *both* counts.

Before you accuse others of spreading FUD about your project, perhaps 
you should stop the practice yourself.

--K
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:

> They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it
> with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not included in 
> the source.

You keep saying this, but I just don't see where it's coming from.

Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are 
needed by cmake to build the project.  This is all that is required by 
the GPL.

And before you tell me to "look again" or "go read something" or 
whatever -- I did.  I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm 
looking at the files in question.  I also have a copy of the GPL, which 
says exactly this: "plus the scripts used to control compilation and 
installation of the executable".  Note there is no requirement that the 
actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. 
  Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the 
entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc.

Secondly, even if they were required to include cmake in the cdrkit 
package, they can legally ship cmake and cdrkit in a single package 
under the GPL -- the modified BSD license allows this exact combination. 
  They don't do this because they don't *need* to, but if they did need 
to, it would be perfectly legitimate.

I may not be convinced of truth of their argument that cdrtools has 
licensing issues.  That depends entirely on where you draw the line 
between a compilation, which is a derivative work under copyright law, 
and a mere aggregation, which is not.  But I *am* absolutely convinced 
that your counter-argument about cdrkit is absolutely false.

--K
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

> Firstly, the cdrkit source ships with all of the cmake scripts that are 
> needed by cmake to build the project.  This is all that is required by 
> the GPL.
>
> And before you tell me to "look again" or "go read something" or 
> whatever -- I did.  I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm 
> looking at the files in question.  I also have a copy of the GPL, which 
> says exactly this: "plus the scripts used to control compilation and 
> installation of the executable".  Note there is no requirement that the 
> actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them. 
>   Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the 
> entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc.

Well, now that you found this out, does this mean that you finally concur with 
me that Bloch & Co. are license trolls?

You may have no experiences with the systematic ways to prove/disprove things
I use, but you still found that it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires 
you to _include_ the complete toolchain _under_ _GPL_.

And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include the 
toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that "the schily 
makefilesystem" (being a independently developed program) needs to be part of 
cdrtools.


The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to understand 
that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that "the schily makefilesystem" is 
part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL together with cdrtools,
then _of_ _course_ the same applies to "cmake" which is just a replacement 
for "the schily makefilesystem".


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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1955 bytes --]

> > And before you tell me to "look again" or "go read something" or
> > whatever -- I did.  I have the cdrkit source tarball right here, and I'm
> > looking at the files in question.  I also have a copy of the GPL, which
> > says exactly this: "plus the scripts used to control compilation and
> > installation of the executable".  Note there is no requirement that the
> > actual *build tools* be included, only the scripts used to control them.
> >   Otherwise it would be illegal to ship any GPL'd program without the
> > entire source to make, gcc, binutils, sed, awk, cat, etc.
>
> You may have no experiences with the systematic ways to prove/disprove
> things I use, but you still found that it is ridiculous to claim that the
> GPL requires you to _include_ the complete toolchain _under_ _GPL_.
It is ridiculous indeed. Now please, where do they claim the GPLv2 requires 
that the whole toolchain needs to be under the GPLv2?

> And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include
> the toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that "the schily
> makefilesystem" (being a independently developed program) needs to be part
> of cdrtools.
The GPLv2 neither requires to include the toolchain nor is it ridiculous to 
pay attention to GPLv2 §3 which talks explicitely about the build scripts. 

> The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to
> understand that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that "the schily
> makefilesystem" is part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL
> together with cdrtools, then _of_ _course_ the same applies to "cmake"
> which is just a replacement for "the schily makefilesystem".
Please read GPLv2 §3. It's talking about "scripts used to control 
compilation". That term applies to your schily makefilesystem but NOT to 
cmake. The cmake scripts are indeed included with the source and are under 
GPLv2.


- Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> > The next step in understanding why Bloch is a license troll is to
> > understand that _iff_ Bloch/Debian seriuosly believe that "the schily
> > makefilesystem" is part of cdrtools and needs to be published under GPL
> > together with cdrtools, then _of_ _course_ the same applies to "cmake"
> > which is just a replacement for "the schily makefilesystem".
> Please read GPLv2 ?3. It's talking about "scripts used to control 
> compilation". That term applies to your schily makefilesystem but NOT to 
> cmake. The cmake scripts are indeed included with the source and are under 
> GPLv2.

I am sorry to see that you did not inform yourself well enough about cdrtools.
This caused you to ask a useless question that you could avoid if you did 
understand the background!


Some hints to you:

If you replace nail A by nail B, it still remains a nail.

	If you believe that "the schily makefilesystem" refers to
	"scripts used to control compilation", then "cmake" of course
	is nothing different.

	If you believe that "cmake" is a separate program, then of course
	"the schily makefilesystem" is also a separate program.


Now you should _carefully_ read your own text........
You introduced the term "cmake scripts" for your own confusion. If you understand 
_what_ this is in _contrary to "cmake" or "the schily makefilesystem", you 
answered your question and you know why Bloch/Debian cannot be taken for serious.


I recommend you to first inform yourself before asking again....

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4695 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [08.07.08 15:10]:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> Some hints to you:
> 
> If you replace nail A by nail B, it still remains a nail.
> 
> 	If you believe that "the schily makefilesystem" refers to
> 	"scripts used to control compilation", then "cmake" of course
> 	is nothing different.
> 
> 	If you believe that "cmake" is a separate program, then of course
> 	"the schily makefilesystem" is also a separate program.
> 
> 
> Now you should _carefully_ read your own text........
> You introduced the term "cmake scripts" for your own confusion. If you understand 
> _what_ this is in _contrary to "cmake" or "the schily makefilesystem", you 
> answered your question and you know why Bloch/Debian cannot be taken for serious.
> 

OK, now I finally got it right:

It is about the "scripts". What other people may call makefiles.

The scripts and files bundled with your cdrtools to control the build 
process are under CDDL. 

E.g. RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul:

#ident "@(#)i586-linux-gcc.rul  1.11 07/05/09 "
###########################################################################
# Written 1996 by J. Schilling
###########################################################################
#
# Platform dependent MACROS for Linux
#
###########################################################################
# Copyright (c) J. Schilling
###########################################################################
# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only
# (the "License").  You may not use this file except in compliance
# with the License.
#
# See the file CDDL.Schily.txt in this distribution for details.
#
# When distributing Covered Code, include this CDDL HEADER in each
# file and include the License file CDDL.Schily.txt from this distribution.
###########################################################################


But the Debian maintainers stated, that this files - *necessary* to 
build cdrtools - have to be under GPL.

An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow.

> 
> I recommend you to first inform yourself before asking again....
> 

So now I'm informed (you did *not* help, on the contrary...):

All the fuzz because of the Makefiles? You really must hate the GPL, for 
not double licensing these.

> Jörg
> 

BTW: for the next time, and there will be a next time, just copy 
yourself the following disclaimer and include it to every mail:

" You are using a fork of the original software, which may not support 
all features, which are already implemented in the original. 

The fork is based on the disagreement on how the GPL is to be 
interpreted:
1) linking of GPL and CDDL code. The FSF states that you cannot legally 
   link GPL and CDDL code, but there is no word about linking in the 
   GPL.
2) about the license of makefiles. The distribution which 
   first excluded cdrtools, insisted on the fact, that all makefiles had 
   to be under GPL to distribute it. This is a corrlation of two 
   unrelated clauses in the GPL.

I therfor behold this interpretation of GPL as wrong, and urge you to 
use the orginal as it has more features, and also advise all binary 
distributors to contact their lawyers to verify my opinion, as I have 
done.

This so called problem definitely does not apply for all source based 
distributions (e.g. Gentoo). So there is no problem to use the 
original." 
Put some links in it, maybe with quotings of some resonable people, thus 
not you! An also not a link to your awfull page 
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

This should be all about the issue; no insults, no conspiracy theories, 
no discussions about freedom with me. It is not for your cause...

If your software is superior, than you should not have to insult any 
other people. Let your software speak. Like you said in the 
debian bugreport: "Der Ton macht die Musike"

saying "This feature is only implemented in the orginal, use this and 
your problem is gone." gets far mor people on your side than "Your are 
using a software implemented by dorks, full of bugs and they dared to 
mess with my beloved code."

Peaceful
Sebastian, which still resides on the FSF and Debian way of seeing 
things.

And remember: there will always be people that have another, even 
contrary, opinion than yours. Try to convince them, and not insult them.

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> OK, now I finally got it right:
>
> It is about the "scripts". What other people may call makefiles.
>
> The scripts and files bundled with your cdrtools to control the build 
> process are under CDDL. 
>
> E.g. RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul:

You did _not_ get it right.

the file RULES/i686-linux-gcc.rul is part of a program that Debian replaced by 
cmake. This file is _not_ part of mkisofs and this file is _not_ part of "the 
build scripts" as it is part of the generic tool chain that is not required by 
the GPL to be part of the source. The program "cmake" is nothing than a less
portable attempt o replace the features of the program called "the schily 
makefile system". Both programs are not specific to a certain program but 
program independent.

> An interpretation of the GPL which I can follow.

Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people 
do who claim to have read the GPL.

As I did already explain the legal facts for using the program "the schily 
makefile system" (you should read it to reduce your confusion), let me explain 
why the GPL does not require "the build scripts" to be under GPL:

If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), 
you will find the following important fact:

The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except 
the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be 
made available. 

It is obvious that this has been done intentionally. If you did understand the 
general intention of the GPL you would know that requiring these "scripts" to 
be under GPL would not be aligned with the basic idea of the GPL: "you need to 
put everything under GPL that is a derived work of GPLd software". These 
scripts are obviously _not_ derived from the program. This is why they need to 
be available but not under GPL.

As I wrote many times before: legal discussions are like programming. You do it 
wrong if you do not think all your ideas to it's logical end. If you forget to
consider a fact when planning a program it will fail later. If you forget to 
consider a fact when you check your legal claims, they are not compatible with 
reality.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2218 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 11:57]:

> Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as many people 
> do who claim to have read the GPL.
> 
> As I did already explain the legal facts for using the program "the schily 
> makefile system" (you should read it to reduce your confusion), let me explain 
> why the GPL does not require "the build scripts" to be under GPL:
> 
> If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), 
> you will find the following important fact:
> 
> The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except 
> the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be 
> made available. 
> 

" The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable."

You refer to that clause?
This clause defines what source code is under some conditions. It states 
that Makefiles *are* source code, if you do a *binary* distribution. 

Therefor they have to be under GPL, if you do a binary distribution.

As for Gentoo there is no limitation, because it is a source 
distribution.

> It is obvious that this has been done intentionally. If you did understand the 
> general intention of the GPL you would know that requiring these "scripts" to 
> be under GPL would not be aligned with the basic idea of the GPL: "you need to 
> put everything under GPL that is a derived work of GPLd software". These 
> scripts are obviously _not_ derived from the program. This is why they need to 
> be available but not under GPL.
> 

And it is quite obvious, that is meant the way I see it, because the 
binary is a derrived work, and in this special case some important parts 
of the process to get this derived work, must also be free.

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), 
> > you will find the following important fact:
> > 
> > The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except 
> > the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be 
> > made available. 
> > 
>
> " The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the executable."

I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very obvious
parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your english.....

The GPL discriminates between "the work" (which needs to be under GPL)
and "the complete source" which is a superset of "the work" and other parts 
that do not need to be under GPL.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1463 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:14]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> > > If you _carefully_ read the GPL (lawyers do it, I did it but Debian doesn't), 
> > > you will find the following important fact:
> > > 
> > > The GPL uses the phrase "under the terms of this License" in all places except 
> > > the place where it requires "the scripts used to control compilation" to be 
> > > made available. 
> > > 
> >
> > " The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
> > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> > associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> > control compilation and installation of the executable."
> 

> The GPL discriminates between "the work" (which needs to be under GPL)
> and "the complete source" which is a superset of "the work" and other parts 
> that do not need to be under GPL.
> 
Nowhere in the whole GPL is stated that "the complete source code" is a 
superset of "the work". "The work" is only used to refer ro projects 
which *use* "the Program", which is the term used for the primary object 
of the licence.

> Jörg
> 
Read again yourself, brother
Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > The GPL discriminates between "the work" (which needs to be under GPL)
> > and "the complete source" which is a superset of "the work" and other parts 
> > that do not need to be under GPL.
> > 
> Nowhere in the whole GPL is stated that "the complete source code" is a 
> superset of "the work". "The work" is only used to refer ro projects 
> which *use* "the Program", which is the term used for the primary object 
> of the licence.

You would need to reread the GPL until you understand this ;-)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:47]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> You would need to reread the GPL until you understand this ;-)
> 
OK, Jörg,

your the only person on this fricking planet, who actually understands 
the GPL. Nor does the FSF, nor does the ignorant and incompentent crown 
at Debian.

I bow for Thou, Oh Master!

How could I be so impudent to oppugn You?!

Well...

I'm right, you're wrong

EOD

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Stroller]

On 9 Jul 2008, at 14:13, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> ...
> I get the impression that you have problems to understand even very  
> obvious
> parts of the GPL, it seems that you would need to enhance your  
> english.....

You frikkin' clown, Joerg.

   On 9 Jul 2008, at 10:56, Joerg Schilling wrote:
   ...
   Well this is because you did oversee important facts in the GPL as
   many people do who claim to have read the GPL. ...

You demonstrate in this earlier message today that you don't know the  
difference between "oversee" and "overlook", two quite different  
words with different meanings.

You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your  
English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.

In fact, this causes me to wonder if all your problems stem from a  
failure to understand the GPL. Perhaps it is YOU who has misread it?  
Certainly, when you speak in English, your own words cannot be trusted.

Stroller.

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Joerg Schilling]

Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your  
> English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.

Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß uns einfach 
die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen.

Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen weil Du 
bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing (was: emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools)

[Stroller]

On 9 Jul 2008, at 15:05, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You really are not in a position to chastise others' English - your
>> English usage being quite clumsy at the *best* of times.
>
> Wenn Du glaubst Problmeme mit meinem Englisch zu haben, dann laß  
> uns einfach
> die Diskusion in Deutsch weiterführen.
>
> Ich befürchte aber, das wird uns beide auch nicht weiterbringen  
> weil Du
> bislang nichts wirklich Hilfreiches zur Diskusion beitragen konntest.

I trust this indicates that in future you'll only be posting to  
gentoo-user-de
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user-de/

Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Well, now that you found this out, does this mean that you finally concur with 
> me that Bloch & Co. are license trolls?

Not being so emotionally attached to the isse as you are, I'm not going 
to resort to name calling.  I will say that the issue, in my opinion, is 
nowhere near as clear-cut as they say.

Again, it boils down to precisely where you draw the line between a 
compilation, which would be a derivative work under copyright law and 
thus be affected by the terms of the GPL, and a mere distribution, which 
would probably not by considered a derivative work, and at any rate 
explicitly excluded by the GPL.

If cdrtools is a "compilation" then the *entire* package must be covered 
by the GPL because one part of it is.  If cdrools is merely an aggregate 
distribution of individual works, then each work can obviously stand on 
its own.  The fact that you include a single Makefile to build the 
entire package at once does seem to tilt things in favor of a unified 
work, but until a court of law makes that ruling, my opinion isn't worth 
squat.

> And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include the 
> toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that "the schily 
> makefilesystem" (being a independently developed program) needs to be part of 
> cdrtools.


Again, you are ignoring the plain language of the GPL license itself. 
It is not ambiguous or unclear or anything like that.  It explicitly 
says: "scripts used to control" the build process.  That's not a phrase 
we just made up, it's *what is in the license*.  It's pretty simple:

The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every 
directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every 
directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it, 
just like any other source file.

In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is 
covered by the GPL.  Thus, the cdrtools build system is under a CDDL 
license and the cdrkit build system is under a GPL license.  The *actual 
program* you use to do the building means nothing to the GPL, so it's 
pointless to even bring it into the discussion.

--Mike

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

> The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every 
> directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every 
> directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it, 
> just like any other source file.
>
> In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is 

This is a definite lie!


It seems that we need to stop here as you are not willing to have a fact based 
discussion.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > just like any other source file.
> >
> > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is
>
> This is a definite lie!
File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:

# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.

Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously 
a script to control the build process.

> It seems that we need to stop here as you are not willing to have a fact
> based discussion.
See fact above.

Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > just like any other source file.
> > >
> > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is
> >
> > This is a definite lie!
> File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
>
> # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
>
> Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously 
> a script to control the build process.

I am sorry to see that you repeatedly ignore facts.

The file RULES/rules.top is part of a _separate_ project called "the schily 
makefilesystem". 

mkisofs/Makefile is under GPL and if you _read_ the GPL you would know that 
there is no problem with this.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > just like any other source file.
> > >
> > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is
> >
> > This is a definite lie!
> File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
>
> # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
>
> Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously 
> a script to control the build process.

Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting 
software and legal definitions!

RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called  "the 
schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
is much _older_ than and  _independent_ from cdrtools.

If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem 
because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile 
system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not 
limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.


mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The 
CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not 
the CDDL.

"the schily makefile system" is _definitely_ _not_ a derived work from 
mkisofs/Makefile


It seems that you still need to learn the difference between

-       "the bucket contains water" 
 
and
 
-       "the water contains a bucket" 

Come back after you learned this.....

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3798 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 11:22]:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> > Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > > directory.  The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > > directory.  THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > > just like any other source file.
> > > >
> > > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL.  In cdrkit, that file is
> > >
> > > This is a definite lie!
> > File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
> >
> > # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> > # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
> >
> > Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously 
> > a script to control the build process.
> 
> Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
> what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting 
> software and legal definitions!
> 

This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and 
also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to 
be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to 
provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.

> RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called  "the 
> schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> is much _older_ than and  _independent_ from cdrtools.
> 

Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to 
build the binary, thus s.a. 
If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform 
distribution.

BTW: Your interpretation of Makefiles as source code in a specific 
language is quite farfetched.

> If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem 
> because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile 
> system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not 
> limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> 
No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in 
non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what 
you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.

> 
> mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The 
> CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not 
> the CDDL.
> 
If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking" 
mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together, 
with is illegal according to the FSF.

I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the 
whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also 
cover linking:

" These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote 
it. "


Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
> > what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting 
> > software and legal definitions!
> > 
>
> This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and 
> also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to 
> be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to 
> provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.

You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did 
not understand the GPL correctly.

> > RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called  "the 
> > schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> > is much _older_ than and  _independent_ from cdrtools.
> > 
>
> Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to 
> build the binary, thus s.a. 
> If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform 
> distribution.

You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the 
toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.

If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver 
e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the 
"configure" shell script. 


> > If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem 
> > because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile 
> > system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not 
> > limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> > 
> No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in 
> non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what 
> you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.

You would need to learn the official meaning of the term "free". The GPL in the 
specific case of "the schily makefilesystem" limits the "freedom to use" which
is why the GPL is unacceptable for this kind of free software.


> > mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The 
> > CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not 
> > the CDDL.
> > 
> If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking" 
> mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together, 
> with is illegal according to the FSF.
>
> I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the 
> whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also 
> cover linking:
>
> " These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If

....

Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference 
between 
 
-       "the bucket contains water"  
  
and 
  
-       "the water contains a bucket"  
 
Come back after you learned this..... 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3981 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:21]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did 
> not understand the GPL correctly.
> 

No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of 
the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.

But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of 
law could proove eitherof us wrong.

> > > RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called  "the 
> > > schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> > > is much _older_ than and  _independent_ from cdrtools.
> > > 
> >
> > Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to 
> > build the binary, thus s.a. 
> > If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform 
> > distribution.
> 
> You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the 
> toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
> 
> If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver 
> e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the 
> "configure" shell script. 
> 

OK, Jörg,
we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you 
build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?


> 
> > > If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem 
> > > because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile 
> > > system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not 
> > > limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> > > 
> > No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in 
> > non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what 
> > you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.
> 
> You would need to learn the official meaning of the term "free". The GPL in the 
> specific case of "the schily makefilesystem" limits the "freedom to use" which
> is why the GPL is unacceptable for this kind of free software.
> 

There is no "official" meaning of free, nor will there ever be one.
There are several agreements on what free means; that's why the FSF 
*states* their meaning of freedom as the first thing on their homepage.

You have another opinion of what "free" means, that's fine, that's your 
lawful right.

Go, take a Philosophy 101.

> 
> > > mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The 
> > > CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not 
> > > the CDDL.
> > > 
> > If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking" 
> > mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together, 
> > with is illegal according to the FSF.
> >
> > I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the 
> > whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also 
> > cover linking:
> >
> > " These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
> 
> ....
> 
> Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference 
> between 
>  
> -       "the bucket contains water"  
>   
> and 
>   
> -       "the water contains a bucket"  
>  
Ok in this special case:

The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire 
(CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!

The only solution is to make water to fire (not allowed, it is GPLed, 
and your are not the only author) or fire to water.

So if your are using code, e.g. a library, which is GPLed, your whole 
project has to GPLed. That's it. That simple.

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

Da mein Englisch hier von einem Engländer kritisiert wurde muß ich wohl in 
Deutsch antworten damit dieser Mensch mich besser versteht...

> > You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did 
> > not understand the GPL correctly.
> > 
>
> No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of 
> the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.

Es gibt mehr als einen Geisterfahrer, das was Du vorbringst ist also kein 
Beweis, denn Gesiterfahler fahren nunmal falsch auch wenn es viele davon gibt.

> But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of 
> law could proove eitherof us wrong.

Ich verwende die Auslegung die auch Anwälte verwenden. Das Problem ist, wie 
ich bereits erklärt habe daß Debian und andere Linux Distributoren bislang 
keinen Anwalt befragt haben.

Für mich sind Aussagen von Anwälten aber deutlich glaubwürdiger als Aussagen 
von Laien die mich und meine Projekte zudem in aller Öffentlichkeit angreifen.


> > You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the 
> > toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
> > 
> > If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver 
> > e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the 
> > "configure" shell script. 
> > 
>
> OK, Jörg,
> we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you 
> build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?

Du kannst auch ohne C-Kompiler keine Kompilation durchführen. Du benötigst 
allerdings keinen bestimmten C-Kompiler. Genauso ist auch das separate 
Programmsystem "Das Schily Makefilesystem" einzustufen. Es ist nichts weiter 
als ein weiterer definitiv von den anderen Programmen in den cdrtools 
unabhängiger Baustein. Eine Kompilation  ist teschnisch auch ohne die Dateien 
in RULES/ möglich.


> > Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference 
> > between 
> >  
> > -       "the bucket contains water"  
> >   
> > and 
> >   
> > -       "the water contains a bucket"  
> >  
> Ok in this special case:
>
> The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire 
> (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!

Völlig daneben :-(

Nochmal auf Deutsch, damit es jeder versteht:

	-	In dem Eimer ist Wasser

	-	Im Wasser ist ein Eimer

sind nicht äquivalente Ausdrücke weil sie eine _Richtung_ enthalten.
Die Bestimmungen in der GPL sind genauso: Sie beinhalten eine Richtung.

Die GPL verbietet, daß GPL-Code durch nicht-GPL-Code verwendet wird.

Die GPL verbietet aber _nicht_, daß GPL-Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet.

Die GPL will nichts als verhindern, dan GPL-Code in nicht GPL Programmen 
auftaucht. Wenn Du mal einen Vortrag von RMS gehört hast dann solltest Du 
wissen, daß das genau das ist was RMS verhindern will.

Die Aussagen der FSF GPL und CDDL seien inkompatibel kann man nur als peinlich 
einstufen, weil die korrekte Aussage wäre: GPL und CDDL sind nicht beliebig 
mischbar. Die Fälle bei denen GPL Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet sind sogar 
durch RMS _ausdrücklich_ gewünscht weil die GPL sonst heute völlig irrelevant 
wäre und von niemandem verwendet würde.

Die Aussagen von der FSF und von Debian sind auch deshalb so peinlich, weil
sie etwas äquivalentes zu "Wasser und Eimer sind inkompatibel" behaupten. 
Dabei ist Wasser im Eimer ausdrücklich erwünscht, nur ein Eimer im Wasser 
wird halt ungern gesehen.....

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Dirk Uys]

2008/7/9 Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
>
> Da mein Englisch hier von einem Engländer kritisiert wurde muß ich wohl in
> Deutsch antworten damit dieser Mensch mich besser versteht...
>
>> > You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
>> > not understand the GPL correctly.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of
>> the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.
>
> Es gibt mehr als einen Geisterfahrer, das was Du vorbringst ist also kein
> Beweis, denn Gesiterfahler fahren nunmal falsch auch wenn es viele davon gibt.
>
>> But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of
>> law could proove eitherof us wrong.
>
> Ich verwende die Auslegung die auch Anwälte verwenden. Das Problem ist, wie
> ich bereits erklärt habe daß Debian und andere Linux Distributoren bislang
> keinen Anwalt befragt haben.
>
> Für mich sind Aussagen von Anwälten aber deutlich glaubwürdiger als Aussagen
> von Laien die mich und meine Projekte zudem in aller Öffentlichkeit angreifen.
>
>
>> > You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
>> > toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
>> >
>> > If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
>> > e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
>> > "configure" shell script.
>> >
>>
>> OK, Jörg,
>> we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you
>> build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?
>
> Du kannst auch ohne C-Kompiler keine Kompilation durchführen. Du benötigst
> allerdings keinen bestimmten C-Kompiler. Genauso ist auch das separate
> Programmsystem "Das Schily Makefilesystem" einzustufen. Es ist nichts weiter
> als ein weiterer definitiv von den anderen Programmen in den cdrtools
> unabhängiger Baustein. Eine Kompilation  ist teschnisch auch ohne die Dateien
> in RULES/ möglich.
>
>
>> > Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
>> > between
>> >
>> > -       "the bucket contains water"
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > -       "the water contains a bucket"
>> >
>> Ok in this special case:
>>
>> The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire
>> (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!
>
> Völlig daneben :-(
>
> Nochmal auf Deutsch, damit es jeder versteht:
>
>        -       In dem Eimer ist Wasser
>
>        -       Im Wasser ist ein Eimer
>
> sind nicht äquivalente Ausdrücke weil sie eine _Richtung_ enthalten.
> Die Bestimmungen in der GPL sind genauso: Sie beinhalten eine Richtung.
>
> Die GPL verbietet, daß GPL-Code durch nicht-GPL-Code verwendet wird.
>
> Die GPL verbietet aber _nicht_, daß GPL-Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet.
>
> Die GPL will nichts als verhindern, dan GPL-Code in nicht GPL Programmen
> auftaucht. Wenn Du mal einen Vortrag von RMS gehört hast dann solltest Du
> wissen, daß das genau das ist was RMS verhindern will.
>
> Die Aussagen der FSF GPL und CDDL seien inkompatibel kann man nur als peinlich
> einstufen, weil die korrekte Aussage wäre: GPL und CDDL sind nicht beliebig
> mischbar. Die Fälle bei denen GPL Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet sind sogar
> durch RMS _ausdrücklich_ gewünscht weil die GPL sonst heute völlig irrelevant
> wäre und von niemandem verwendet würde.
>
> Die Aussagen von der FSF und von Debian sind auch deshalb so peinlich, weil
> sie etwas äquivalentes zu "Wasser und Eimer sind inkompatibel" behaupten.
> Dabei ist Wasser im Eimer ausdrücklich erwünscht, nur ein Eimer im Wasser
> wird halt ungern gesehen.....
>
> 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
>

It saddens me to see messages like these being sent on this mailing
list. I haven't been around very long, but it seems that these kind of
messages are repeatedly posted on this mailing list and I see no
criticism of this on the list. I do not feel this discussion is
relevent to gentoo. Can you please take you battles elsewhere. I do
not wish to be your adience!

This leads me to the question of whether this kind of conduct is
accepted on the gentoo-user mailing list. If this is indeed the case I
would accept that and deal with it in a way that I choose.

I hope this sort of thing can stop, because I really learn a lot from
the posts that are sent on this list.

Regards
Dirk

ps. This message is not directed to a certain author of this thread, I
feel that it is not a single person responsible for all the OT debate
going on.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Dirk Uys wrote:
> This leads me to the question of whether this kind of conduct is
> accepted on the gentoo-user mailing list. If this is indeed the case
> I would accept that and deal with it in a way that I choose.

Very little is explicitly prohibited around here. Whoever runs the list 
lets the users discuss mostly whatever they want to.

Moderation is best done with a custom procmail rule set on your local 
machine

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > -       "the bucket contains water"  
> >   
> > and 
> >   
> > -       "the water contains a bucket"  
> >  
> Ok in this special case:
>
> The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire 
> (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!
>
> The only solution is to make water to fire (not allowed, it is GPLed, 
> and your are not the only author) or fire to water.
>
> So if your are using code, e.g. a library, which is GPLed, your whole 
> project has to GPLed. That's it. That simple.

Da ich es vorhin vergessen habe zu erwähnen:

Das was Du da behauptest (GPL lib wird durch nicht GPL Code genutzt)
passiert nicht in den cdrtools. Genau darum gibt es ja kein Problem...

Es passiert aber sehr wohl in GNOME bei Debian. Es ist also offensichtlich, daß 
man bei Debian gar keinen Wert auf Einhaltung von Lizenzen legt.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 324 bytes --]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Da ich es vorhin vergessen habe zu erwähnen:

This is an English speaking list, if you want to converse in another
language, please take it to private mail.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Mark Knecht]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Da ich es vorhin vergessen habe zu erwähnen:
>
> This is an English speaking list, if you want to converse in another
> language, please take it to private mail.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
>

Yeah, you're right, and I totally agree with you, but this latest set
of messages have me rolling in the isles. The Bablefish translation
for the line you copied (I assume randomly) is

"There I forgot to mention it a while ago"

I think this might be the closest thing to an apology we're going to
see out of Joerg on this one. ;-)

Thanks to you for that one Neil!

These massive blow-ups are really amazing to us outsiders.

Peace to all,
Mark
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Joerg Schilling]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Da ich es vorhin vergessen habe zu erwähnen:
>
> This is an English speaking list, if you want to converse in another
> language, please take it to private mail.

In case you did not read it.....

Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> asked me to use a language that
is better to read and understand than English, so I switched to German ;-)


If you have problems, please try to find a private solution with "Stroller".

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

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:07:21 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > This is an English speaking list, if you want to converse in another
> > language, please take it to private mail.  
> 
> In case you did not read it.....
> 
> Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> asked me to use a language
> that is better to read and understand than English, so I switched to
> German ;-)

I read it, and wondered why you chose to respond to this, sarcastic,
request when you chose to ignore so many more serious ones.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Stroller]

On 10 Jul 2008, at 10:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Da ich es vorhin vergessen habe zu erwähnen:
>>
>> This is an English speaking list, if you want to converse in another
>> language, please take it to private mail.
>
> In case you did not read it.....
>
> Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> asked me to use a  
> language that
> is better to read and understand than English, so I switched to  
> German ;-)

No, I suggested that those in glass houses might be better advised  
not to throw stones and that - considering the limitations of your  
own English - you should not disrespect others for their usage.

Stroller.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
>>> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

[lots of stuff I regret]

I apologize to everyone for making this mess go on any longer that it 
had to.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a
> problem because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the
> schily makefile system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary
> to the GPL) does not limit the freedom to use software, there is no
> problem.
>
>
> mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile
> system". The CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under
> a license that is not the CDDL.
>
> "the schily makefile system" is _definitely_ _not_ a derived work
> from mkisofs/Makefile

As the GPL is a copyleft, and relies on copyright to be enforceable, 
it's prudent to consider what constitutes a derived work, and if a 
claimed derived work is indeed a derived work at all. SCO's claims 
about header files, and the bruha surrounding XFS when first merged 
into mainline are examples of how this can be a gray area.

To my mind Makefiles make most sense when viewed as independent free 
standing works, or possibly as not copyrightable (if they are the only 
possible expression of a desired result). I'm not familiar enough with 
Joerg's build system to have much of a valid opinion, so a few 
technical questions that Joerg (the author) is best positioned to 
answer:

1. Are your Makefiles unique and peculiar to your build system, so that 
no other build system could conceivably use them?
2. Briefly, what would be involved to have cdrtools built by a different 
build system?

And a few questions about your intentions for your code:

1. Do you permit users to modify and redistribute the Makefiles?
2. How do you feel about users or distros replacing your build system 
and Makefiles with a different system? Leaving aside their reasons for 
doing this, did you intend with the licensing for them to receive this 
right?
3. Would you be willing to dual-license the build system and/or 
Makefiles as CDDL/GPL? It seems to me you don't lose anything if you 
did this.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
> and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
> publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!

There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
usually reasonable, constraints.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 2: Exact estimate

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
> > and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
> > publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!
>
> There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
> opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
> usually reasonable, constraints.

Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point:

You are not allowed to "report" other opinions if they are known to be be wrong.


This obviously applies to the claims from Bloch & Co.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
> > opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
> > usually reasonable, constraints.  
> 
> Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point:
> 
> You are not allowed to "report" other opinions if they are known to be
> be wrong.

Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds the
opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how
ill-informed that person is. You have done exactly that on this list,
posted what Bloch et al believe to be true before stating that it is not
true.

What you are not allowed to do, at least in the UK, is use this to spread
defamatory material under the guise of decrying said material, but that
has not been done on this list.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Mmmm, trouble with grammer have I, yes?" - Yoda

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > > There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
> > > opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
> > > usually reasonable, constraints.  
> > 
> > Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point:
> > 
> > You are not allowed to "report" other opinions if they are known to be
> > be wrong.
>
> Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds the
> opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how
> ill-informed that person is. You have done exactly that on this list,
> posted what Bloch et al believe to be true before stating that it is not
> true.

Nice to see that we have the same opinion here.

The problem with the quote in question was that is has been done uncommented.


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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:17:41 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > > You are not allowed to "report" other opinions if they are known to
> > > be be wrong.  
> >
> > Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds
> > the opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how
> > ill-informed that person is. You have done exactly that on this list,
> > posted what Bloch et al believe to be true before stating that it is
> > not true.  
> 
> Nice to see that we have the same opinion here.
> 
> The problem with the quote in question was that is has been done
> uncommented.

That's right, Alan made no comment as to the correctness or otherwise of
the opinion. He only stated that this opinion was held and that was the
reason for the use of cdrkit, both statements are factually correct.

You'd get more support and respect if you took a less antagonistic
approach to the email you receive, instead of perceiving attacks from
those who are actually trying to support you.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

... "I just forgot to increment the counter," Tom said, nonplussed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> That's right, Alan made no comment as to the correctness or otherwise of
> the opinion. He only stated that this opinion was held and that was the
> reason for the use of cdrkit, both statements are factually correct.

The problem is that this includes an underlying incorrect message.

Meanwhile, I did explain in depth why the claims from the "cdrkit people"
are wrong. I hope that the discussion finally dies or starts being based on 
facts.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
>>> and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
>>> publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!
>> There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
>> opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
>> usually reasonable, constraints.
> 
> Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point:
> 
> You are not allowed to "report" other opinions if they are known to be be wrong.

Please be careful not to apply the legal free 
speech/publication standards of your country to the rest of 
the world.  In the USA, for example, it is most certainly 
legal to publish known-false opinions as long as you clearly 
label them as opinion, not fact.  Our presidential campains 
would be much nicer if it *was* illegal, but it is not.

You have thrown out the words "slander" and "defamation" at 
least once.  Again, I only know first-hand about the USA, 
but here, nothing I've seen so far would even come close to 
legally actionable slander.  Even making factually incorrect 
statements of *fact* can be protected speech, to the extent 
that the person making the statements believes them to be 
true.  And, conspiracy theories aside, I highly doubt the 
people making the claims about licensing issues honestly 
believe them to be false.  There is certainly enough complex 
legal technicalities with cross-licensing issues to raise a 
genuine issue of good-faith belief in such claims.

The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, 
or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been 
tested in court yet.  Unless and until that happens, the 
whole debate is pure theory.  Debian is clearly not willing 
to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating 
their copyright.  If Debian is willing to settle for a far 
inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right 
as distributors.  You have made it abundantly clear that you 
disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do.

--K
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

> The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, 
> or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been 
> tested in court yet.  Unless and until that happens, the 
> whole debate is pure theory.  Debian is clearly not willing 
> to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating 
> their copyright.  If Debian is willing to settle for a far 
> inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right 
> as distributors.  You have made it abundantly clear that you 
> disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do.

This is not true!

There are license violations in other packages from Debian where 
I _could_ sue Debian.


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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mike Edenfield]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> 
>> The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you, 
>> or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been 
>> tested in court yet.  Unless and until that happens, the 
>> whole debate is pure theory.  Debian is clearly not willing 
>> to take the risk of being sued by someone for violating 
>> their copyright.  If Debian is willing to settle for a far 
>> inferior product just to avoid that risk, that's their right 
>> as distributors.  You have made it abundantly clear that you 
>> disagree with their position, so there is not much else to do.
> 
> This is not true!
> 
> There are license violations in other packages from Debian where 
> I _could_ sue Debian.

So sue them and put an end to this whole ridiculous debate.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 407 bytes --]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:22:39 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> There are license violations in other packages from Debian where 
> I _could_ sue Debian.

Have you pointed these out to the Debian devs? What was their response?
Has your lawyer contacted them? You are not American, legal action
doesn't have to be your first recourse. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I am NOT a NUMBER! I am a DEMOGRAPHIC!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Iliev]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

> Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> > > Do you know what defamation and slander is?
> > >
> > > If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there
> > > was no problem. It therefore seems to be important to prevent
> > > underlying "messages".......
> >
> > Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of the matter. Your
> > mention of lawyers does not change this - as legal opinion is
> > merely an opinion that costs some money! (if your lawyer says !Z it
> > does not stop another one saying Z)...
> 
> 
> Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start
> to influence the freedom of others.
> 

How about stopping these reoccurring advertisements of cdrtools on
"gentoo-user"? They influence my freedom to use the list for what it is
meant to be used: Gentoo-only related stuff. 

> 
> Long answer:
> 
> If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_
> opinion and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not
> allowed to publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!
> 

Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
they don't owe you an explanation.

You claim (unfortunately on this list) that it is an attack against you
and there is no problem with your precious package.
Care to "definitely prove it"?


> I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the
> only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before
> that there is no problem.
> 

You may tell whatever you want but...
You are not the ONLY author. There is other people's copyrighted work
in cdrtools. Are you authorized to speak on their behalf?


-- 
Best regards,
Daniel
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

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

I know I should not feed trolls but....

> Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
> It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
> they don't owe you an explanation.

Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily 
distributes the original cdrtools.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Daniel Iliev]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:11:59 +0200
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

> Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I know I should not feed trolls but....


...otherwise, you'd starve to death.

> 
> > Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped
> > cdrtools. It is their right to choose which packets they want to
> > distribute and they don't owe you an explanation.
> 
> Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license)
> happily distributes the original cdrtools.
> 
> Jörg
> 


Hurray! You proved you are right! Now will you stop, please, reopening
this topic on gentoo-user?


-- 
Best regards,
Daniel
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 13:14]:
> Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I know I should not feed trolls but....
> 
> > Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
> > It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
> > they don't owe you an explanation.
> 
> Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily 
> distributes the original cdrtools.
> 

No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything 
needed zu circumvent the licence issue. 

This distro hardly counts for the issue stated.

> Jörg
> 

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> * Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 13:14]:
> > Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I know I should not feed trolls but....
> > 
> > > Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
> > > It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
> > > they don't owe you an explanation.
> > 
> > Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily 
> > distributes the original cdrtools.
> > 
>
> No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything 
> needed zu circumvent the licence issue. 

Please finally stop your FUD!

The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
any packages that could create problems.

This is why Sun e.g. stopped publishing "libcdio" a year ago in order to avoid
a license violation from this lib.

Sun cares about publishing only 100% legal software. Linux distributors did not 
even stop publishing "libcdio".

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 17:28]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> > * Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 13:14]:
> > > Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I know I should not feed trolls but....
> > > 
> > > > Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
> > > > It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
> > > > they don't owe you an explanation.
> > > 
> > > Solaris (the only distribution where lawyers checked the license) happily 
> > > distributes the original cdrtools.
> > > 
> >
> > No wonder: OpenSolaris is mainly under CDDL. *There* you have anything 
> > needed zu circumvent the licence issue. 
> 
> Please finally stop your FUD!
> 
> The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
> any packages that could create problems.
> 
I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days 
ago, is that in *my opinion* the CDDL undermines freedom.

Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a 
whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when 
distributing cdrtools.

What I just stated in my previous mail: There *is* the appropiate build 
chain within OpenSolaris cdrtools, so there isn't the problem, that the 
Debian people have with the whole issue.

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > Please finally stop your FUD!
> > 
> > The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
> > any packages that could create problems.
> > 
> I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days 
> ago, is that in *my opinion* the CDDL undermines freedom.

You are confused: the CDDL does not undermine freedom. It may be that 
you wanted to mention the GPL instead ;-)

> Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a 
> whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when 
> distributing cdrtools.

The original build system in cdrtools is not GPL but it is included in the 
source. The build system replacement made by debian is not GPL either!
In addition parts of the build system are missing.

As Debian claimed that the problem is a non GPL build system, Debian is 
obviously spreading FUD.


> What I just stated in my previous mail: There *is* the appropiate build 
> chain within OpenSolaris cdrtools, so there isn't the problem, that the 
> Debian people have with the whole issue.

You again start with FUD, please stop this nonsense.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sascha Hlusiak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --]

Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:45:37 flamete Joerg Schilling:
> > Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a
> > whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when
> > distributing cdrtools.
>
> The original build system in cdrtools is not GPL but it is included in the
> source. The build system replacement made by debian is not GPL either!
> In addition parts of the build system are missing.
Now come on, what parts are missing?? In what cases am I unable to build 
cdrkit because I lack some build scripts or part of the build system?

Don't you think we'd like to know that? Don't make this thread longer and more 
pointless than it already is. 


Sascha

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [07.07.08 17:46]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> > > Please finally stop your FUD!
> > > 
> > > The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
> > > any packages that could create problems.
> > > 
> > I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days 
> > ago, is that in *my opinion* the CDDL undermines freedom.
> 
> You are confused: the CDDL does not undermine freedom. It may be that 
> you wanted to mention the GPL instead ;-)
> 

I am not confused, but I have a different definition of freedom, than 
you have. I don't care about, what the OSI defines as OpenSource, 
because I always disliked the concept and definition of OpenSource. I do 
not see any problem in restricting freedom, in order to preserve 
freedom. In fact I think this is necessary, to gurantee freedom.

> > What I just stated in my previous mail: There *is* the appropiate build 
> > chain within OpenSolaris cdrtools, so there isn't the problem, that the 
> > Debian people have with the whole issue.
> 
> You again start with FUD, please stop this nonsense.

I'm just stating that that OpenSolaris hardly counts, because the whole 
thing is under CDDL.
Which btw allows SUN or any other to restrict access to any improvement 
they make.

> 
> Jörg
> 

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> I'm just stating that that OpenSolaris hardly counts, because the whole 
> thing is under CDDL.
> Which btw allows SUN or any other to restrict access to any improvement 
> they make.

Please finally stop your childish FUD now!

Your claim is an obvious lie :-(

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [08.07.08 12:19]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
> 
> > I'm just stating that that OpenSolaris hardly counts, because the whole 
> > thing is under CDDL.
> > Which btw allows SUN or any other to restrict access to any improvement 
> > they make.
> 
> Please finally stop your childish FUD now!
> 
> Your claim is an obvious lie :-(
> 

What claim? What FUD?

First sentence can be prooven on www.opensolaris.org.

Second sentence is a concern, which you can't just declare as FUD, 
because we can't look in the future, and do not know what someone is 
doing then. And the possibility exists, that is a fact.

> Jörg
> 

Sebastian
 
-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mark Kirkwood]

Daniel Iliev wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200
> Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>
>   
>> I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the
>> only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before
>> that there is no problem.
>>
>>     
>
> You may tell whatever you want but...
> You are not the ONLY author. There is other people's copyrighted work
> in cdrtools. Are you authorized to speak on their behalf?
>
>
>   

Exactly -

Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other 
people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a 
common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations.

If said opinions are believed to effect someones livelihood, then there 
can be a court case where one set of opinions becomes the one that 
everyone within the jurisdiction of that court must (at least in public) 
agree to. That has *not* happened with respect your cdrtools license 
change, hence (many) differing opinions about it.

regards

Mark
 
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other 
> people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a 
> common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations.
>
> If said opinions are believed to effect someones livelihood, then there 
> can be a court case where one set of opinions becomes the one that 
> everyone within the jurisdiction of that court must (at least in public) 
> agree to. That has *not* happened with respect your cdrtools license 
> change, hence (many) differing opinions about it.

You missunderstand things - sorry.

Some issues are _so_ obvious that all lawyers have the same opinion without the 
need for a court case.

The GPL may not be written in a way that allows it to be understood from the 
first attempt you read it, but if you carefully read it 20+x, you will finally 
see where things are obvious and whatintention is behind the GPL.

If you like to participate on a fact based discussion, we would first need to
clear up some things. 

1)	The GPL e.g. does not use the term "linking" - it is completely based 
	on the Copyright term "derived work". If you find an attempt to explain
	the GPL that is based on the term "linking", throw it away. 
	NOTE: This includes the GPL FAQ from the FSF :-(

2)	The word "contains" implies a direction. The sentence 

	-	"the bucket contains water"

	has a different meaning than the sentence

	-	"the water contains a bucket"

Keep this in mind when we discuss:

GPL §2 a):

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in 
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any 
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third 
    parties under the terms of this License. 

---
We also need to define the boundaries for something we call "the work".
"The work" does not include the libraries it used.

Let us take the program:

main()
{
	printf("Hello world\n");
}

It does not contain the implementation of the function printf() but it uses it.

Bloch/Debian claim that the printf() implementation needs to be published under 
GPL if the above program was published under GPL.

Well, check the GPL above and answer the following questions:

1)	Is the program above "contained" in the printf() function?

2)	Is prinf() a "derived work" from above program?

Any non-moronic person would of course answer both questions with "no".

As you answered both questions with "no", it is obvious that the program above 
may rightfully _use_ printf() without the need to put printf() under GPL.


The example above describes the _only_ relationship between GPL code and 
non-GPL code that appears in the distribution cdrtools. It is therefore obvious 
that there is _no_ license problem in cdrtools.



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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Mark Kirkwood]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>   
>> Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other 
>> people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a 
>> common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations.
>>
>> If said opinions are believed to effect someones livelihood, then there 
>> can be a court case where one set of opinions becomes the one that 
>> everyone within the jurisdiction of that court must (at least in public) 
>> agree to. That has *not* happened with respect your cdrtools license 
>> change, hence (many) differing opinions about it.
>>     
>
> You missunderstand things - sorry.
>
> Some issues are _so_ obvious that all lawyers have the same opinion without the 
> need for a court case.
>
> The GPL may not be written in a way that allows it to be understood from the 
> first attempt you read it, but if you carefully read it 20+x, you will finally 
> see where things are obvious and whatintention is behind the GPL. (snippage)
>
>   

Sorry Joerg, but again - just your opinion! If it was so obvious there 
would not *be* numerous discussions keeping you busy about this! Note 
that I may actually agree with your opinion about the intent of the GPL, 
but that would be just *my* opinion!

I believe that once you understand this, you will be able to disagree 
less antagonistically, and cease alienating folk (which I would like to 
see, as you have much of value to contribute - but currently your 
presentation of ideas does not help anyone to listen!).

regards

Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Joerg Schilling]

Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Sorry Joerg, but again - just your opinion! If it was so obvious there 
> would not *be* numerous discussions keeping you busy about this! Note 
> that I may actually agree with your opinion about the intent of the GPL, 
> but that would be just *my* opinion!

These discussions only exist because the FSF published a wrong GPL FAQ (wrong 
because of obvious reasons I mentioned already and wrong because it is in 
conflict with many statements made by the Law Professor Eben Moglen) and of 
course because many people read only parts of the GPL without seeing all the
text together as a whole.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:38:50 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same - 
> > licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the 
> > superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community
> > feel that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk, regardless of what
> > Joerg (cdrtools maintainer) asserts in this matter.  
> 
> I am sorry to see that you are still a victim of a _few_ OSS trolls.

Read what you quoted. Alan said nothing about the licence in this
paragraph. He stated that some people believe the licence is problematic,
which is not the same as saying it is problematic. The former is
certainly true, your views on the latter are already well known.

Alan was answering the question "why was this done?", not "was it right
to do this?".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Conclusion: the place where you got tired of thinking.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Jan Seeger]

I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
Jörg removed from the list?

Regards,
Jan
--
Four bits at a time
www.thenybble.de
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Robert Bridge]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:32:34 +0200
"Jan Seeger" <jan.seeger@thenybble.de> wrote:

> I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
> of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
> best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
> Jörg removed from the list?

Userrel I believe, however there are issues involved in such a move as
it (currently) goes against gentoo policy. Wait for the next council
meeting, where permitting such measures is being debated would be my
suggestion.

Rob.

P.S. I intend this post purely to be a reply based on my following the
-dev mailing list and hence having a vague idea of what is going before
council soon.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
> I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
> of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
> best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
> Jörg removed from the list?

why remove Jörg and not everybody who insisted in going on?

Neil, Alan, Daniel, Sebastian, Stroller,... are all guilty of not just 
ignoring him. Everybody knows Jörg's position. He might be correct or not, he 
won't change it. No matter what. So just stop replying. EOT, everybody happy, 
no bans needed.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 314 bytes --]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:58:52 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> Neil, Alan, Daniel, Sebastian, Stroller,... are all guilty of not just 
> ignoring him.

Mea culpa :(

Yes, before anyone comments, I know that's not English :P


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Cross a tagline and a tribble? You get a full HD...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -avC cdrkit && emerge -av cdrtools

[Robert Bridge]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:13:23 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:58:52 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
> > Neil, Alan, Daniel, Sebastian, Stroller,... are all guilty of not
> > just ignoring him.
> 
> Mea culpa :(
> 
> Yes, before anyone comments, I know that's not English :P

Do we have a Gentoo latin list?
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list