Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: unruh on 8 Mar 2010 13:43 On 2010-03-08, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: > In article <slrnhp8icl.3ee.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh wrote: > >> I think what he wants Debian to do is to distribute an up to date >> version of cdrtools, not a 5 year old version. And he is objecting to >> derogatory treatment of the work. > > In what way is it derogatory? The program may be based on one four > years old (May 2006). Would he object to someone distributing a four > year old CD of RedHat, which also happened to contain cdrecord? I cannot speak for Joerg. I am a user. But from what I have seen, the derogatory treatment is the treatment that you have displayed in your various posts here, and in the changes which were made to cdrecord which he felt were not up to snuff. > >> For a while, while Debian still called it cdrecord, he also objected to >> them attributing authorship to him of a work which he felt had been >> altered and ruined. They finally changed the name. > > Debian have changed names of programs before to avoid displeasing > developers. eg. Firefox -> Iceweasel; Thunderbird -> Icedove. As far > as I can tell, cdrkit has been thus named since September 2006. Yes. After he objected. > > I've been told that if Joerg withdraws the licence from Debian, he > must also withdraw it completely from all other free software > projects. That, as I understand it, is how the German law > works. (ie. Any licence, if it doesn't name any individual licencee, > must be withdrawn /in toto/, rather than from an individual or group.) I am not sure where this is coming from. Who said something about withdrawing the license from Debian? As you said he issued cdrecord first with GPL and then with CDDL. Those licenses cannot be withdrawn. What he objects to is that you are using an ancient version of cdrecord as the basis for cdrkit, and cdrecord which has had a huge amount of developement since that time. > > If you want background into how unreasonable Joerg is about this, have > a look at the conversations here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00552.html What I see is unreasonableness on all sides. I find Debian's stance to be equally unreasonable, long after 2006. Yes, Joerg is difficult to get along with. But you are not marrying him. You are providing software. And Debian is screwing its customers by their position on the inclusion of cdrecord, and it seems simply out of pique. Your customers do not care is Joerg is difficult. They care that their cd/DVD recording software work and work with the whole array of modern hardware. And he has demonstrated that a) he writes good code, and b) is willing to put in the time and effort to write it and maintain it and develop it, something that has been in extremely short supply in all of the "alternatives". > > Remember at all times: > > 1. Joerg is always right. > 2. If you can prove him wrong, refer back to rule 1. (He'll ignore > your valid points and think up fresh bones to be picked. Notice how > he doesn't reply to me any more.) Again, who cares, except a few people whose noses he has put out of joint. The discussions, as I said, really sound like a bunch of 5 year olds in a playground. And this post is a continuing example. What the hell is the purpose of this namecalling, including your irony? Be a grownup, and remember that the most important thing is the user, not the distributor or your own ego. > > PS. That last paragraph "Remember at all times..." is irony, for the > sake of any member of the legal profession, in front of whom this may > be being waved. (Sillier things have happened.) >
From: Nix on 8 Mar 2010 15:44 On 8 Mar 2010, Paul Martin said: > Remember at all times: > > 1. Joerg is always right. > 2. If you can prove him wrong, refer back to rule 1. (He'll ignore > your valid points and think up fresh bones to be picked. Notice how > he doesn't reply to me any more.) I have also seen exactly this behaviour when arguing with libertarians and religious fanatics. RMS does *not* suffer from it: if you pick a hole in one of his arguments (hard, but it has been done) he switches opinions so fast that people have been known to get whiplash.
From: unruh on 8 Mar 2010 18:11 On 2010-03-08, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: > In article <slrnhpahar.djv.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh wrote: >> On 2010-03-08, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: >>> In article <slrnhp8icl.3ee.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, >>> unruh wrote: >>> > Um... How on earth does that make sense? If someone chooses to use an > old version of a program, surely that's their own choice. Can > Microsoft object to me continuing to use MSDOS 5? How about Linus > Torvalds objecting to me using a 1.2.13 kernel? Linux does not object to you using that kernel, nor does Joerg object to using an ancient version. He objects to Debian distributing an ancient version, both because it short changes the users, and because he still gets blamed when cdrecord does not work. > >> What I see is unreasonableness on all sides. I find Debian's stance to >> be equally unreasonable, long after 2006. > > The GPL and CDDL are incompatible. This is confirmed by the author of > the CDDL. Joerg doesn't agree. Oh dear. And you complain about Joerg. There is an ancient proverb having to do with motes and beams that you should perhaps read. As I said I find the stance of both to be rediculous, and childish. (PS, your claim re the CDDL is silly. The legal status of that license is not determined by rumours about what the supposed author claimed or did not claim, but by the language. It is certainly less incompatible that GPL3 is with GPL2, which WERE designed to be incompatible, and are. Has Debian stated that they refuse to include any GPL3 programs since the kernel is GPL2 and Linux has stated he will never release it under GPL3? .. > >> Yes, Joerg is difficult to get >> along with. But you are not marrying him. You are providing software. >> And Debian is screwing its customers by their position on the inclusion >> of cdrecord, and it seems simply out of pique. > > The GPL and CDDL are incompatible. This is confirmed by the author of > the CDDL. Joerg doesn't agree. Therefore nobody has a usable licence > to distribute cdrecord code produced by Joerg after May 2006. Horseshit. The CDDL IS a license. > >> Your customers do not care is Joerg is difficult. > > Debian has no customers. Yes, I know. That is my objection to them. They certainly act as if the users were irrelevant. > >> They care that their cd/DVD recording software >> work and work with the whole array of modern hardware. > > Which it does. Most of the cdrecord quirkiness is for ancient > hardware. It's not needed on hardware released in the last five > years. In fact, cdrecord continues to promote an outdated device > access method on Linux, rather than allowing the kernel to abstract it > and help prevent two different programs accessing the same device. > > I've recently taken to using libburn and dvd+rw-tools, neither of > which have any code from JS. > >> And he has >> demonstrated that a) he writes good code, and b) is willing to put in >> the time and effort to write it and maintain it and develop it, >> something that has been in extremely short supply in all of the >> "alternatives". > > How relevant is that to the validity of the licensing? He can write > the best code in the world, but if nobody is legally allowed to use it > due to bad licensing or threat of legal action, would you be willing > to stick your neck out by distributing it? ??? You certainly are "legally allowed to use it". > >> Again, who cares, except a few people whose noses he has put out of >> joint. The discussions, as I said, really sound like a bunch of 5 year >> olds in a playground. And this post is a continuing example. What the >> hell is the purpose of this namecalling, including your irony? Be a >> grownup, and remember that the most important thing is the user, not the >> distributor or your own ego. > > You defend Joerg, but he is one of the most childish in his > arguments. He's taken back his ball as he doesn't like how the other > kids are playing with it. > I am sorry, but your behaviour and the behaviour of many of the Debian people is equally childish. For you to come out with "He is more childish than I am" is simply more evidence of that. Grow up.
From: Richard Kettlewell on 9 Mar 2010 05:46 unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: > On 2010-03-08, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: >> unruh wrote: >>> What I see is unreasonableness on all sides. I find Debian's stance to >>> be equally unreasonable, long after 2006. >> >> The GPL and CDDL are incompatible. This is confirmed by the author of >> the CDDL. Joerg doesn't agree. > > Oh dear. And you complain about Joerg. There is an ancient proverb > having to do with motes and beams that you should perhaps read. > As I said I find the stance of both to be rediculous, and childish. > (PS, your claim re the CDDL is silly. The legal status of that license > is not determined by rumours about what the supposed author claimed or > did not claim, but by the language. So look at the language, neither document is hard to find. Nor is finding an incompatibility. e.g. CDDL s3.1 insists you include a copy of the CDDL with the work; GPL2 s6 insists you don't add any restrictions beyond those in the GPL. Neither are unreasonable given what they're trying to achieve, but you can't satisfy both at once. > It is certainly less incompatible that GPL3 is with GPL2, which WERE > designed to be incompatible, and are. Has Debian stated that they > refuse to include any GPL3 programs since the kernel is GPL2 and Linux > has stated he will never release it under GPL3? Programs aren't linked with the kernel, so licence compatibility problems don't arise. The kernel source has explicitly stated this for many years. Download it and check if you don't believe me. >>> Yes, Joerg is difficult to get along with. But you are not marrying >>> him. You are providing software. And Debian is screwing its >>> customers by their position on the inclusion of cdrecord, and it >>> seems simply out of pique. >> >> The GPL and CDDL are incompatible. This is confirmed by the author of >> the CDDL. Joerg doesn't agree. Therefore nobody has a usable licence >> to distribute cdrecord code produced by Joerg after May 2006. > > Horseshit. The CDDL IS a license. The relevant point is that cdrecord is a mixture of both the CDDL and the GPL. Again, download it and check if you don't believe me. So the incompatibility matters. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Tony Houghton on 9 Mar 2010 09:55
In <slrnhpb11u.kup.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > Linux does not object to you using that kernel, nor does Joerg object to > using an ancient version. He objects to Debian distributing an ancient > version, both because it short changes the users, I don't feel short-changed by Debian; cdrkit works, and unlike cdrtools it uses the most appropriate, supported Linux kernel interface and doesn't require root access for no justifiable reason. > and because he still > gets blamed when cdrecord does not work. Please explain why it's Debian's fault that Joerg gets blamed when cdrecord, written by him and which Debian have nothing to do with, doesn't work. Perhaps he likes to blame Linux and doesn't like the fact that wodim proves how easily he could have updated cdrecord to interact correctly with a modern Linux kernel? -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |