From: unruh on 28 Jan 2010 20:02
On 2010-01-28, Nix <nix-razor-pit(a)esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2010, Paul Martin said:
>> In article <7s95umFm69U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>,
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> In article <slrnhlskdj.49l.h(a)realh.co.uk>,
>>> Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>It actually prevents people from adopting it if they want to distribute
>>>>it in strict compliance with common licences (interpreted the way nearly
>>>>everyone else interprets them).
>>> Cdrkit is in conflict with GPL and Copyright law and cannot be legally
>>> distributed either in source or in binary.
>> Why? You keep saying this, but never have any evidence to back it.
> It should be obvious by now that Joerg doesn't lower himself to giving
> evidence. We're all supposed to believe Joerg because he's Joerg. (That
> his interpersonal interactions would make many inclined to disbelieve
> him if he said the sky was blue is possibly relevant here.)
> (actually right now, right here, the sky is black.)
>> cdrkit is based on cdrtools code that YOU released under the
>> GPL. Having done that, you can't retract it retrospectively.
> He's not retracting anything that I can tell, just annoying everyone who
> dares mention a competing product until they say they've switched to
> make him go away. (This sort of thing was much more fun when Kibo did
>> Anyway, cdrkit is only an interim solution. Nowadays the active
>> development is on libburnia.
> What about libcdio? There do seem to be a *lot* of alternatives in this
> area these days, and thankfully the really old horrendously buggy stuff
> is long faded into the mists of time.
I keep hearing about "developement" and then someone loses interest.
Joerg has demonstrated that he is abot to maintain interest over 15
years. Very few other Open Source authors can say the same.
That is worth a lot.
From: Tony Houghton on 28 Jan 2010 20:33
unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> On 2010-01-28, Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote:
>> The author of the CDDL has stated publicly that it was deliberately
>> based on a licence that is incompatible with the GPL.
> No. He has stated that he based it on a license such that if someone
> violates that license (eg starts selling cdrtools and making it
> proprietary) he has a chance of successfully suing them in Germany. His
> claim is that the GPL does not protect against misuse of the code, that
> the German courts would simply throw out the case. I am not a lawyer and
> have not immersed myself in German copyright law, so can make no comment
> on that. He has claimed that his code and license is completely
> compatible with the GPL however in the sense that it can be run in
> conjunction with GPL programs.
"Not immersed" yourself!? You obviously haven't bothered to read
anything at all that isn't on JS's website. He didn't write his own
licence, the CDDL already existed, and has been attributed to a woman.
>> The GPL isn't just about the authors' rights, it's about the users'
>> rights, probably more so than the authors'. I don't know what action
> Yes, and CDDL also gives users rights. Firefox is not AFAIK GPL, but
> Debian coexists with them. Many programs used by any Linux distro are
> not GPL. You look at the license, and see if you can live with it.
> I have looked at both CDDL and GPL and cannot see the problem.
They probably don't explicitly say they're incompatible with each other,
but have clauses that make them that way. AIUI if he had used one or the
other it would be OK, but they can't be mixed the way he mixed them. The
MPL also has a dual licence clause (but not invoked by Firefox's
copyright AFAIK) allowing code to be released under the MPL and GPL
>> authors were involved in developing cdrtools. They might not appreciate
>> their rights being ignored.
> I assume that he has come to an agreement with the other authors of
> cdrtools, or they would have objected to his changing the license. I
> have no insight into that however. Do you have evidence that they have a
> problem with what he has done?
I don't think he changed the licence of their code, just used the CDDL
on some of his own additions.
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: Phil Stovell on 28 Jan 2010 23:58
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:07:31 +0000, Nix wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2010, Paul Martin told this:
>> In article <pan.2010.01.28.11.50.28.354511(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>,
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:39:20 +0000, Nix wrote:
>>>> I can burn them and I can read them for as long as I can read CD-Rs,
>>>> but both give up the ghost completely after a few years. Sucky
>>> CD-Rs I burned in 2002 as backups for digital photos still work
>> I have some Fujifilm CDs (that cost me £2 each) that I burned back in
>> 1996 that still play back fine.
> Maybe I'm storing them wrong or something.
I kept them in a CD wallet whilst they were "current", now they're just in
a pile on a shelf. I redid all the backups onto DVD when I got my first
DVD burner. I always make 2 copies and also have the photos on my hard
disk. I've never had to restore from the backups, mind.
From: Tony Houghton on 29 Jan 2010 08:42
Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <slrnhm4en7.bu0.h(a)realh.co.uk>,
> Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Not immersed" yourself!? You obviously haven't bothered to read
>>anything at all that isn't on JS's website. He didn't write his own
>>licence, the CDDL already existed, and has been attributed to a woman.
> I am not sure what you are talking about.....
> There is a woman from Intel that claims to be responsible for the CDDL.
She worked at Sun at the time she wrote the CDDL. I'm not aware of her
making her own claims about writing the CDDL, that's other executives at
Sun who say she was responsible.
> Her claims however sound funny for a person like me (I was part ot the
> process to create the CDDL and the current CDDL text contains three
> legal contribitions from me that were needed in order to make the MPL
> suitable use in Europe and suitable for single persons or smaller
> entities). This woman did not send a single mail to the mailing list
> where the CDDL has been discussed and thus is is extremely improbable
> that her contribution was any more than whining about the fact that it
> cannot be the GPL.
It's even more improbable that Sun's lawyers would accept contributions
from you who misunderstand other parts of the licence so badly.
> Note that the first CDDL draft has been presented in December 2004 and
> the final version that includes my contributions has been accepted by
> the OSI (www.opensource.org) to the end of January 2005. I had a long
> discussion with the former Sun Chief architect (Andy Tucker) in
> September 2004 and we both did agree that it would be a bad idea to
> use a license for Solaris that is intentionally incompatible with the
> Now tell me: do you still believe a women from Intel, or do you like
> to listen to people who really did the work?
I believe the people who really did the work ie Sun.
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: Darren Salt on 29 Jan 2010 09:47
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
> Note that the first CDDL draft has been presented in December 2004 and the
> final version that includes my contributions has been accepted by the OSI
> (www.opensource.org) to the end of January 2005.
> I had a long discussion with the former Sun Chief architect (Andy Tucker)
> in September 2004 and we both did agree that it would be a bad idea to use
> a license for Solaris that is intentionally incompatible with the GPL.
And yet it would appear that such a licence was used.
But then, that's a (shall we say) slightly different situation than with
Cdrtools the Undistributable, but let's not go there... oh, wait...
<wanders off to install cdrskin and xorriso>
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/ & http://tartarus.org/ds/
This tagline is freeware. No payment should be made for its distribution.