From: Tony Houghton on
In <slrnhma08n.fc0.unruh(a)>,
unruh <unruh(a)> wrote:

> On 2010-01-30, Tony Houghton <h(a)> wrote:
> ??? 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.

I don't think GPL tries to override or contradict copyright law.

> 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).

Are you claiming that no copyright notices in the fork credited anyone
other than JS? Or do you refer only to the message printed by the
program? Try to actually answer the questions instead of indulging in
selective quoting and whingeing that, "I never said that, you're making
things up."

>> (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.

I didn't say you had claimed either of those. You've used selective
quoting to make it appear so, and you are the one who has turned fiction
into a statement of fact.

Are you arguing from a position that cdrkit is in violation of GPL-2
clause 2c or not?

> 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
> work.

He may be the author of cdrecord, but that doesn't mean he can't be
called its maintainer too. And he is the maintainer, but not the author,
of other components of cdrtools.

>>> Note that my cdrecord states


>> I don't care what "your" cdrecord states. It's well documented that
> It is not "mine".

You're the one who said it was.

> As I said Joerg maintains the source code for all versions on the
> berlios web site.

No you didn't, you specifically said he is not the maintainer.

> 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.

Your demonstration was based on your selective quoting and untrue
comments about what I'd posted. But <>
shows what cdrecord used to print and states that Jorg's complaint is
about removal of part of it.

> And in particular please give the evidence of what cdrecord printed
> way back just before the split first occured. 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 against libel.

Were SuSE in truth unwilling to cooperate with the authors? I think
mailing list archives would probably show that SuSE did attempt to

> And I am afraid that the situation was such that lots of junk was also
> being cast against Schilling.

Do you have any evidence of cdrkit or Linux distribution maintainers
slinging "junk" that wasn't a fair reflection of JS's own comments?

TH *
From: unruh on
On 2010-01-31, Tony Houghton <h(a)> wrote:
> In <pnuf37-87c.ln1(a)>,
> Mark Hobley <markhobley(a)> 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

A usb card will clip at about 2V and an onboard card about the same.
Your riaa preamp seems to be set too high, since it should only be
giving a peak of about 1V. The only thing you could do is to put in a
preamp with control to decrease the input into the sound card.

Note that most onboard sound cards are really crappy. they have lots of

> 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.

What do you use now to monitor? There should be no difference.

From: unruh on
On 2010-01-31, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnhm8vlc.ri6.unruh(a)>, 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
> different countries).
> 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.

No. It has legal status as a part of copyright law.

> 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, you cannot "implicitly accept the terms". The law is not that
stupid. To be bound you need to explicitly accept terms of a contract.
Thus I cannot bind you by saying "If you read this, your are committed
to paying me $100000 in exchange for my wisdom". Under copyright law, the
author has control over all copying. He can give permission to copy
under certain conditions. If the copying is done out side the terms of
those permissions, then that is a violation of copyright law ( not
contract law). It depends on the country as to whether or not copyright
law violation is a civil or criminal affair or both (In Canada it is
both). As a civil affair, it is up to the copyright holder to sue. If it
is criminal it is up to the state to bring charges.

> 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

That right is right given by the state. There is no implicit or natural
law right to control copying. The state grants a monopoly to the creator
in order to encourage creation. It is a monopoly right.

> 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

That depends on the country. In some countries it is a criminal act to
violate copyright.

> 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.

These things?
> [Disclaimer: This is also a simplification, but makes some important
> points. IANAL but this is as I understand things from SWMBO, who is.]
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
From: Tony Houghton on
In <slrnhmbe8k.jm9.unruh(a)>,
unruh <unruh(a)> wrote:

>> 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.
> What do you use now to monitor? There should be no difference.

I use my hifi amp to play the PC's sound. If I use the amp for the
turntable instead I'll have to use something else if I want to listen to
the PC's version of what it's recording while it's still recording it,
or recording the next file. It's just an inconvenience, that's all.

TH *
From: Nix on
On 30 Jan 2010, Joerg Schilling told this:

> In article <>,
> Paul Martin <pm(a)> wrote:
>>> Now one could write a wrapper program for the library which would then
>>> be called by the GUI.
>>You don't need root privileges to write to a CD or DVD writer under
> Given the fact that your other claims prove that you are missing the needed
> skills on Linux to be able to judge on this, the best fit reply would be:
> you are uninformed and thus wrong.

Gosh I wonder why nobody wants to use your software. It's really a mystery.