From: unruh on 30 Jan 2010 23:03
On 2010-01-30, Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote:
> In <slrnhm9d3a.tnh.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>,
> unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-30, Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In <slrnhm8rm1.hd6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>,
>>> unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> cdrkit still credits cdrtools copyright holders, including Jorg
>>> Schilling, in its copyright notices. There are at least 2 reasons why
>>> his claims that it violates GPL-2 clause 2c are false:
>>> (a) The program itself isn't required to print a copyright notice unless
>>> it reads commands interactively eg a shell.
>>> (b) Even if it is interactive, it isn't necessary to print a copyright
>>> message if the original work didn't anyway. As cdrtools' copyright
>>> notice includes libellous comments about cdrkit, it was obviously added
>>> after the fork.
>> Note that your "rules" seem to have been made up on the spur of the
>> moment and have no standing in copyright law. Where in the world do they
>> come from.
> They come from clause 2c of GPL-2. Are you seriously challenging that's
> what the GPL means? In other words do you claim the GPL deliberately
??? GPL is not the law of the land. GPL is a license under copyright law
and copyright law takes precedence of the license. Nor can GPL claim
more than copyright allows it to claim. Under moral rights,
the author of a work has the right to be identified as the maker of the
work. For many years, the program was called cdrecord, although its
content had been changed. For a number of years, that software was
labeled as being entirely due to Joerg Schilling, when it had been
changed from his software ( a violation of moral rights).
> (a) All GPL software must print a copyright notice regardless of whether
> it's interactive.
> (b) A fork must print whatever whimsy the maintainer of the original
> branch demands as a copyright notice.
Since I never claimed either of those, you are again making things up.
Note that Joerg is not the maintainer. He is the author of cdrecord.
Under copyright law, the author has the right to demand a copyright
notice of his work and has the right to deny changes made to his own
>> They seem to have the same standing as scientists common
>> knowledge that if they take a picture or diagram from an old paper of theirs
>> which they gave away the copyright to to the journal, if they alter some
>> small thing in the diagram, it no longer falls under the old copyright.
>> That is simply false, but most physicists if you ask them will tell you
>> it is true.
> ...Quacks like a Creationist.
>> Note that my cdrecord states
>> Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01
>> Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01a65 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C)
>> 1995-2009 J?rg Schilling
>> Linux sg driver version: 3.5.34
>> Exactly which of those statements is libelous?
> I don't care what "your" cdrecord states. It's well documented that
It is not "mine". It is the version of cdrecord a65 obtained from the
cdrecord.berlios.de web site.
> earlier versions printed complaints about "bastardized and defective
> versions" being shipped with distros.
As I said Joerg maintains the source code for all versions on the
berlios web site. Having demonstrated your propensity for making up
claims, perhaps some evidence (and claiming it is well documented is
hardly good enough), would be in order. And in particular please
give the evidence of what cdrecord printed way back just before the split first
And besides, you called it libel-- was it altered? Did it have bugs?
I believe that the answer to both is yes. Truth is an absolute defence
And I am afraid that the situation was such that lots of junk was also
being cast against Schilling. Silly behaviour on his part does not
remove the requirement, moral and legal, to use an author's work with
respect. Wodim, is mostly his work. I understand why it was created,
since dvd writing was not a free part of cdrecord at the time. But it
was still his work, and still is.
From: Mark Hobley on 31 Jan 2010 05:08
Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> I'm in the process of transcribing some vinyl to CD. These are disks that
> I've had for years and that have never been reissued on CD. I'm using
> Audacity and an external sound card to make WAV files without any
> problems, but I'm having a spot of bother creating playable music CD
> images from the files and burning them to CD:
Out of interest. What record player are you using? Do you have the record
player connected via a sound card, If so do you have a pre-amp in between?
or do you have one of those record players that connect via USB?
I have got squillions of vinyl records, and I have to convert some of mine
to a digital format also, when I get round to it.
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
From: Daniel James on 31 Jan 2010 08:23
In article <slrnhm8vlc.ri6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, Unruh wrote:
> A License is a document by
> which the creator gives permission to copy their work under certain
> circumstances. It binds only the creator, not the user, and thus can be
> a one sided agreement, since it does not limit the user, it expands what
> the user can do. A contract is a two person affair, where both are bound
> by the terms of the contract. It requres consent from both parties.
<unwisely sticking my head above the parapet>
That sounds like a convenient simplification of what is actually quite a
complex legal situation (which probably has different meanings in
As such it's /almost/ right ...
A licence doesn't bind anyone to anything. A licence is a statement of
permission (Latin: /Licere/ to be permitted [to do something]). It only
has legal status as part of a contract.
So, if I write a piece of software I can provide you with a licence that
allows you to use it subject to certain terms that I may stipulate. If you
use the software you implicitly accept the terms of my licence and so a
contract exists between us. If I decide to use the GPL and you use my
software then you are bound to comply with the terms of the GPL, and if
you do not then you will be in violation of the contract between us and I
will have legal recourse against you. It's up to me to sue you, though,
not even Richard Stallman can do so without my authority.
Copyright is an expression of the right of the creator of a work to
control the use and distribution of that work. Nobody else has any rights
in that work unless the copyright holder licenses it. Copy rights are
protected by civil law, not criminal law, so it is not a crime to break
another's copyright (i.e. it is not 'illegal'), but a copyright holder can
sue someone who uses their copyright work without a licence, or who breaks
the terms of their licence.
These things are all interlinked, and it makes no sense to try to think of
them as different things.
[Disclaimer: This is also a simplification, but makes some important
points. IANAL but this is as I understand things from SWMBO, who is.]
From: Graham Murray on 31 Jan 2010 11:24
Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> writes:
> So, if I write a piece of software I can provide you with a licence that
> allows you to use it subject to certain terms that I may stipulate. If you
> use the software you implicitly accept the terms of my licence and so a
> contract exists between us. If I decide to use the GPL and you use my
> software then you are bound to comply with the terms of the GPL, and if
> you do not then you will be in violation of the contract between us and I
> will have legal recourse against you. It's up to me to sue you, though,
> not even Richard Stallman can do so without my authority.
No. The GPL specifically states that it is not concerned with
using/running the software. It is purely concerned with making copies of
it, which is not allowed without permission of the copyright owner, and
distribution of such copies. It is licensing you (ie giving you
permission to do something which you would otherwise not be allowed to
do) to copy and distribute the software provided that you comply with
certain stated conditions. If someone obtains a copy of GPL'd software
and they do not agree to comply with the GPL, they may still continue to
use it, they just may not create and distribute additional copies of the
software. Compare this with many other, especially so called 'End User
Licences' which seek to impose restrictions on actions which would be
allowed in the absence of the so called 'licence'.
From: Tony Houghton on 31 Jan 2010 11:57
Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote:
> Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm in the process of transcribing some vinyl to CD. These are disks that
>> I've had for years and that have never been reissued on CD. I'm using
>> Audacity and an external sound card to make WAV files without any
>> problems, but I'm having a spot of bother creating playable music CD
>> images from the files and burning them to CD:
> Out of interest. What record player are you using? Do you have the record
> player connected via a sound card, If so do you have a pre-amp in between?
> or do you have one of those record players that connect via USB?
> I have got squillions of vinyl records, and I have to convert some of mine
> to a digital format also, when I get round to it.
I'm in a similar position. I'm not short of (semi) hi-fi equipment, but
my main problem is that the analogue circuitry on ordinary PC sound
cards clips below the normal maximum level of "line in/out" and my RIAA
preamp seems to have a particularly high output with no gain control. I
tried borrowing an emi 6|2 external sound card but the firmware loader
in Linux gives up with an error, and I'm not convinced even that would
solve the clipping anyway. I'll probably have to use my hifi amp and
maybe use the headphone socket instead of line out so I can control the
analogue level, which means I'll have to use headphones or crappy
portable speakers to audibly monitor the digitised signal.
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk