>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 12 10:50:54 2002
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
>> joerg is calling you a thief...
This is not true! I never used this word in my mail....
>Thanks for notifying me.
>He should reconsider this, because the only theft in this whole mess
>wasn't what I did.
???
Interesting to see that you are not completely unwilling to communicate....
>cdrecord is a GPLed software, and contains contributions from people other
>than him, and those people did not sign a copyright signover of any kind.
>So by running his own proprietary fork of it, he is violating the GPL on
>parts of the code (including a couple of mostly oneliner patches by me,
>and I'm sure that I for one do *not* agree with any of my code being
>used in proprietary software.).
Plese contact a lawyer before making such false claims:
Read the law that is important for this case:
Cdrecord has completely been written in Germany.
The German / European Copyright law (better let us call it
Autorship rights law as the US people otherwise would missunderstand
us because thay only have a Copyright law) is what applies here.
Yes I did get contributions, but this was less than 5% in total and
far less than 1% for the Linux or Solaris version.
The Autorship rights law is dealing with a so called "work"
and _not_ with single lines of code.
In addition there is some principles of law that deal with
accumulation of property which apply because there is not even a
single source file that includes contributed code in a way that
it dominates over the aount of my intellectual property found
in this file.
For this reason I am the original Author of cdrecord and _do_ have the right to
publish it with any Licence I like. For the parts that are not critical code
because the know how is widely spread, I choosed the GPL and for the parts where
I am on the leading edge (cdrecord_ProDVD was the 3rd DVD-recording application
world wide in February 1998) I keep the sources secret.
I _am_ getting roughly one request to help other people from India, China or
Russia for free to write their CDR program so I am sure that even CD recording
is of high interest for many companies that like to cdreate a complete closed
source solution.
>Let's look at his other accusations:
>> This is not an independant fork of cdrtools!
>It sort of is. It's intended to be a free fork closely following the
>development of cdrtools, which happens to be a great piece
>of software for writing CDs. It's just too bad there are no plans to add
>DVD support in a legal version thereof, so it's time for someone else to
>do it.
Cdrecord-ProDVD is a legal DVDD writing program what is your problem?
In addition: Why do _you_ claim this and never tried to contact me before?
You cannot know what you are talking of because you did not ask me!
>You can claim it's not really independant because it doesn't contain all
>that many changes to the cdrtools code, and you'd be somewhat right -
>I just added DVD support and "fixed up" [IMO -- see below] the build
>system.
You did not fix it but you destroy the build system. You replaced a completely
automated build system that allows you to compile on far more than 30 different OS
by something worse. Why?
>If it ever becomes necessary, it can become a truly independant fork,
>though. I just hope it won't get that far.
???
>> It is rather an _unmaintained_ snapshot
>It is true that I haven't released many updates lately. This is mostly
>because I'm busy with other work, and because the current version works
>perfectly for me.
Let us call it this way: After you fixed the worse bugs in YOUR build system
that caused cdrecord to dump core you stopped working on it.
>I will release a newer version once I either have some spare time, or once
>I find a serious problem in the current version.
You name it! You are a person who did make useless changes on the build system
for unknown reasons and your only motivation was to have a private copy of
cdrecord running for your A03. This way we never will get good and powerfull
free software.
>> that uses an add on which
>> most likely has been created by reverse engineering cdrecord-ProDVD.
>For the record, it hasn't been. I believe proprietary software is evil,
>therefore I don't download it.
So you don't use CVS which us proprietary software because it uses a
non-standard archive format?
So you use "star" rather than GNU tar because GNU tar ignores standard
and writes in a proprietary data format?
Stay reasonable....
>> Give me a better explanagtion why the hell the "patch" this beast is
>> related on appeard about a week after I announced my first test binary
>> and about two weeks after I put the binary on the server.
>Coincidence. I happened to buy a DVD writer than, and wanted it to work.
>If you don't believe me, I can scan the invoice.
This does not seem to be relates to my text above, please explain!
>> In addition note that the "author" removed the tested and working
>> make file system and replaced it by some piece of junk that works
>> on Linux only by accident - it does not work on other OS!
>Actually, I adapted the code to follow GNU coding standards. The old make
>file system might have worked, but (purely IMO, of course -- you can run
>flamewars about make file systems just as much as about indenting with
>tabs vs. indenting with spaces, vi vs. emacs or kde vs. gnome) is
>extremely nonstandard, bad code, not usable (what? I have to edit
>Makefiles in subdirectories to pick a cddb server?) and not really
>maintainable (partially because it's nonstandard).
The GNU build system is extremely non-standard and uses techniques of the 70's
My build system uses techniques of the 80's and the 90's and is much more
flexible than the outdated and ill designed GNU system. If you like to learn
about make file systems we may discuss this later but for now it seems that you
just miss the needed know how.
Read e.g.
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/smake/PortableSoftware.ps.gz
>And it actually works on FreeBSD and OpenBSD (and probably NetBSD because
>it's not that different, but I didn't try), and someone reported he has it
>working on MacOS X. Not all that unportable, is it?
.... By accident because Cdrecord and the files in ~/include have been
designed to compile on these systems and because these OS do not
implements Large Files in a POSIX compliant way.
>Maybe it doesn't work on some proprietary OSes - to be honest, I don't
>care (they should just use a free OS, or at least a compiler that
>works, like gcc) and if someone does care, he can send me a patch, and if
>it doesn't break anything, chances are I'll apply it.
Well Linux is a proprietary OS more than others. It implements interfaces
that are not all POSIX compliant and frquently change without notice and
a migration plan!
If you only care Linux it shows that you are not really interested in good
software quality. I would never use a software where the Author tells me that
he only develops on Linux and pisses on other OS. Such opinion makes just a bas
Author :-(
>> It seems that this person did try to write own autoconf code from what
>> he did understand. Unfortunately it seems that he did not understand
>> much :-(
>Actually I think my autoconf code is much nicer than cdrtools'.
>Compare, for example, the align.h stuff. (46 lines in configure.in as
>opposed to exec'ing 674 lines of C code to generate a header).
Are you counting matches or do you like to discuss features?
My solution is many times fater and as we use "make" to compile, there is
no problem to have a rule to create align.h.
Being consequent with the "GNU coding style" would result in C sources without
indentation and a make system that is completely shell script based.
If you like to add compile features for whe whole project to "configure" it
would increase in size by less than 2%.
I am using a object oriented approach and work "make" based!
>> Look at the web page and judge yourself. The first thing that comes into
>> mind is the 'pay' button.
>Actually the sole reason I placed it there is to show people you can ask
>users to contribute without violating the GPL.
I do not violate the GPL, so what are you referring to?
>If people find it offensive, I'll just remove it -- there, done.
Looks better.
>> Writing portable code like cdrecord and make it work with all drives on
>> the market is a hard job. The person who claims that he is the author
>> of this project is somebody who is falsely taking all the credit but
>> does not put own effort in development.
>Actually I never claimed all the credit. The readme file, the website, and
>dvdrecord --version all give credit to cdrtools/cdrecord.
>I rightfully claim the credit for releasing a free version that can write
>to DVDs and that uses a standard build system.
Cdrtools come with a standard build system!
You should educate yourself before if you don't understand the system in use.
>I hope everything is clear now so I can get back to coding.
What?
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
