Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Kitty seca...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if nothing else, I've learned a couple of things from this thread: 1) FUD works, especially if the FUDer is with a notable distro. 2) AUR is my friend. Well, if nothing else, I've learned that having patience is not common place... Yeesh man, do you expect things to change overnight? The attacks from the hostile downstream packager started in May 2004. The buggy and unmaintained fork was created in September 2006. We now have the end of January 2010. I would not claim that things happened overnight BTW: when the fork was created, I was in hope that people would understand that it is a dead fake at the very latest within the following year. It is really amazing how much pain some users are willing to last. Do you like to run a Linux from September 2004 today? People who still use cdrkit do something very similar except that cdrkit added bugs to the old cdrtools version. Arch Linux is of course free not to decide to publish recent software. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Joerg, The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear trollish with your replies. Maybe we will move to GNU mkisofs/isofsmk as development appears to have started there (I can troll too...). Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Just burning the question: what about other operating systems (yes, FreeBSD and family) about it? It appears to be the cdrtools VS cdrkit issue doesn't affect them, and in fact FreeBSD guys keep cdrtools as precompiled package but hold cdrkit as a source-only port. 2010/1/27 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: Joerg, The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear trollish with your replies. Maybe we will move to GNU mkisofs/isofsmk as development appears to have started there (I can troll too...). Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Am 27.01.2010 10:31, schrieb Allan McRae: Joerg, The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear trollish with your replies. I disagree. It seems that most of the mkisofs code was actually written by Jörg himself or written while the package was under Jörg's maintainership (only a small portion is from the original author, who has no interest in it anymore), so I would consider him the defacto copyright holder on mkisofs, which means he is the only one who could sue us if linking the GPL-code against a CDDL library would in fact violate the GPL. Now as he is the one who claims that this is NOT a problem, he won't do that. This is a non-issue, nothing will happen to us, nobody will be pissed, nobody will sue us, everything will just be better and the world will be a happier place. +1 from me to dump cdrkit and to move back to cdrtools. The only reason this discussion ever started is because someone THOUGHT that this MIGHT become a problem, but wasn't even sure about it. As Jörg pointed out, it was never proven that the GPL and CDDL are incompatible in that way, some people just SUSPECTED it MIGHT be that way. Do you see how many maybes are in there? This is the typical Debian license paranoia, which Arch has never had, and hopefully won't get it anytime soon. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear trollish with your replies. I am sorry to see you again trolling :-( Other people in this mailing list have been able to send useful discussion contributions but you seem to insist in legal nonsense. There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Plese do not point me to the FSF Web site, it was not made by a lawyer, it is not secific to cdrtools and I even have a private mail from Eben Moglen that is is made with general incorrect claims regarding the GPL on it. I don't know in what legal system you are living but in the legal system I live, you are just supporting a hostile person that is doing libel attacks against OSS. Why do you support this hostile downstream? He is not even doing any work anymore since May 6th 2007. As long as you ignore legal principles, a discussion with you will lead us to nowhere. Maybe we will move to GNU mkisofs/isofsmk as development appears to have started there (I can troll too...). It seems that you are childish. First note that since more than 11 years, I am the official mkisofs maintainer. For this reason, other entities cannot legally use the name mkisofs. Second: some funny people did take a mkisofs source from early 1999 that is missing all important features and that is full of bugs. Given the fact that Debian was not able to find people to support their fork, do you really believe that RMS will find someone? The person who started to work on this outdated source already came up with a lot of wrong claims. Let me explain reality... mkisofs-1.212b5 misses: - support for large files - working Rock Ridge Support - ISO-9660:1999 support - UTF-8 support - Any file name coding abstraction support - Working Eltorito boot support - Boot support for various other platforms (i.e. Sparc) - Support for Apple extensions via HFS - UDF support - Built in find(1) support (made in mkisofs via libfind). - It however creates ISO images with lots of structural bugs. The current mkisofs is 5x as much as software you got in early 1999. If you like to live in the past, congratulations! I have seen a lot of encouraging mails from other people. I hope that Arch Linux will finally come back to OSS principles. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: Just burning the question: what about other operating systems (yes, FreeBSD and family) about it? It appears to be the cdrtools VS cdrkit issue doesn't affect them, and in fact FreeBSD guys keep cdrtools as precompiled package but hold cdrkit as a source-only port. Cdrkit did replace a working original build system by something strange. As a result, the fork only compiles on a few platforms and runs on even fewer platforms. Wodim e.g. compiles on Solaris but the binary just dumps core on every even call. As a result, the fork mainly infected Linux. Other platforms dis stay with a working and maintained software. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: I disagree. It seems that most of the mkisofs code was actually written by Jörg himself or written while the package was under Jörg's maintainership (only a small portion is from the original author, who has no interest in it anymore), so I would consider him the defacto copyright holder on mkisofs, which means he is the only one who could sue us if linking the GPL-code against a CDDL library would in fact violate the GPL. Now as he is the one who claims that this is NOT a problem, he won't do that. This is a non-issue, nothing will happen to us, nobody will be pissed, nobody will sue us, everything will just be better and the world will be a happier place. Thank you! You did find a very good phrase that is hard to find by an affected person. It seems that you hit the nail on the head. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Well, after thinking about it (and talk with some friends, none lawyer), I just vote for community cdrtools and dump cdrkit. I always think about supporting other operating systems, mainly FreeBSD and NetBSD, before taking place in disputes like this. If the software can be ported to more platforms, then it is better mantained was always a lemma from me (and many folks of NetBSD team :) ). So cdrtools is better quality software in my humble opinion. If the only reason to put it out of [community] repo is just a matter of FUD, then the only logical decision to take is to throw away the broken software. Arch shouldn't get carried by this type of rumours from no way.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. This has been repeatedly asked of you You claim that you are allowed to distribute a tarball containing GPL code and that the needed build scripts are not required to be GPL because the build scripts are a separate project. You claim to have legal advise that your interpretation of the GPL allowing this is valid, but refuse to supply any evidence of that advise so that we can assess the outcome of the legal review ourselves. Plese do not point me to the FSF Web site, it was not made by a lawyer, it is not secific to cdrtools and I even have a private mail from Eben Moglen that is is made with general incorrect claims regarding the GPL on it. Great. More evidence from your side that you cannot produce for anyone else to see. Can you actually produce anything backing your claims? As long as you ignore legal principles, a discussion with you will lead us to nowhere. As long as you ignore the request to supply evidence that your claim is correct, a discussion with you will lead us nowhere. As the situation currently stands, there are claims that distributing GPL code with non-GPL build scripts is a violation of the GPL. This may or may not be correct (again, supply us some evidence that it is not), and because the GPL requires us to distribute the code, we would be in a legally dubious situation. I'd be more than happy for Arch to distribute cdrtools if the issue of whether the required distributing the source is legal is resolved. The technical merits certainly appear to warrant this. That resolution requires some actual evidence be supplied... Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
2010/1/27 Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. This has been repeatedly asked of you You claim that you are allowed to distribute a tarball containing GPL code and that the needed build scripts are not required to be GPL because the build scripts are a separate project. You claim to have legal advise that your interpretation of the GPL allowing this is valid, but refuse to supply any evidence of that advise so that we can assess the outcome of the legal review ourselves. Plese do not point me to the FSF Web site, it was not made by a lawyer, it is not secific to cdrtools and I even have a private mail from Eben Moglen that is is made with general incorrect claims regarding the GPL on it. Great. More evidence from your side that you cannot produce for anyone else to see. Can you actually produce anything backing your claims? As long as you ignore legal principles, a discussion with you will lead us to nowhere. As long as you ignore the request to supply evidence that your claim is correct, a discussion with you will lead us nowhere. As the situation currently stands, there are claims that distributing GPL code with non-GPL build scripts is a violation of the GPL. This may or may not be correct (again, supply us some evidence that it is not), and because the GPL requires us to distribute the code, we would be in a legally dubious situation. I'd be more than happy for Arch to distribute cdrtools if the issue of whether the required distributing the source is legal is resolved. The technical merits certainly appear to warrant this. That resolution requires some actual evidence be supplied... Well, there are some lawyer we can just consult to put a thombstone on this discussion? It will going to nowhere if we can't do this single clearing of legal issues. In fact, this is the only hurdle to put cdrtools in [community] repo (well, someone needs to adopt it, too). Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. Either do this or stay quiet. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 27/01/10 22:40, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools. In the legal system I live in, if you have a suspicion that doing something is illegal, then you do not do it. If someone tells you that it is fine with no evidence of legal backing for that assertion and you decide to take their advise, you are legally responsible for your decision. Hence the caution and continuously asking for you to provide some evidence that the often mentioned legal review actually says that it is fine to distribute cdrtools. Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Am Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 13:40:08 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. Either do this or stay quiet. Jörg The point is that nobody of us can proof for sure if it's legal or not. So it's quite pointless to continue arguing here. Personally I have no objections against having a cdrtools package in our repository if someone wants to maintain it. Licenses are important, but one shouldn't be too picky about it. If I remember correctly the initial question was if it is legal to distribute a GPL licensed software build with CCDL licenses build system. Both licenses are 100% free and both parts have the same author. In this case we only have a very theoretical problem which might be interesting for lawyers but has no real impact. Even if the licenses are not compatible there wont be any real consequences. However, I am still with Allan here. All this situation was initially caused by Jörg himself and talking about a proof but not actually providing it does not help. PS: I wonder if this discussion will come to a conclusion before optical discs are obsolete. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Re: [arch-general] Software RAID w/ 4 Drives Fails
Yes, you should be able to do it either way. I have built 6+ drive arrays from clean install before without any problem. IIRC, the command should just be mdadm /dev/md0 -level=5 -raid-devices=4 /dev/sd[a-d]1 You can also add a switch to force all drives active but you must also add -ff to the command line. On Jan 22, 2010 3:56 PM, Carlos Williams carlosw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Robert Howard rjh0...@ecu.edu wrote: RAID5 is one of the levels... I don't doubt that I could build a working Arch system with 3 physical drives and then use 'mdadm' to add the 4th drive as a spare or as additional disk space for the RAID5 array. I should be able to add a 4th disk to RAID5 w/o having any 'hot spares, correct? I just feel that I should be able to do this from a fresh install. I assumed I was missing a syntax in the command. I partition all 4 disks identical. All disks have a equal amount of partition space assigned to RAID (type = fd) and then I use mdadm to build the array so I can't see why it does not work. Yes I do have a USB keyboard but if I don't need to add the usb modules for RAID5 with 3 disks, why would I need to add it for RAID5 with 4 disks. It makes no sense to me...
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: It seems that most of the mkisofs code was actually written by Jörg himself or written while the package was under Jörg's maintainership (only a small portion is from the original author, who has no interest in it anymore), so I would consider him the defacto copyright holder on mkisofs, which means he is the only one who could sue us if linking the GPL-code against a CDDL library would in fact violate the GPL. If this is true, can't Joerg just issue an official statement that he will not sue Arch and we can close this case. or can any other party sue you when violating the GPL ?
Re: [arch-general] Software RAID w/ 4 Drives Fails
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Robert Howard rjh0...@ecu.edu wrote: Yes, you should be able to do it either way. I have built 6+ drive arrays from clean install before without any problem. IIRC, the command should just be mdadm /dev/md0 -level=5 -raid-devices=4 /dev/sd[a-d]1 You can also add a switch to force all drives active but you must also add -ff to the command line. So according to everyone who is supporting this thread, I should be fine with the following command assuming that all 4 individual disks have an identical 'fd' partition, correct? mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=5 --raid-devices=4 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2 /dev/sdc2 /dev/sdd2 The above command is what I am running and I will try it again on my test machine just for the sake of resolving this. I DON NOT want the 4th disk to be a 'hot spare' but rather an expansion of the RAID5 array to allow for more disk space / redundancy. I think the 'mdadm' utility has a 'grow' option to do the same thing to an existing RAID system if I had only 3 drives to RAID5. Let me know if anyone sees an error in my command syntax and thanks again for all your help!
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:29 -0200, Johann Peter Dirichlet wrote: Well, there are some lawyer we can just consult to put a thombstone on this discussion? It will going to nowhere if we can't do this single clearing of legal issues. In fact, this is the only hurdle to put cdrtools in [community] repo (well, someone needs to adopt it, too). Seems that won't happen, because: - this discussion comes up now and then, I've seen exactly the same discussion on the fedora-legal lists without outcome - the anti-cdrtools people state that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, some have lawyers who back that statement - the pro-cdrtools guy states that the lawyers are wrong, backed by other statements from other lawyers So we're in a deadlock here. One says that CDDL+GPL in one package is illegal, the other states that statement is wrong, but no evidence of that is given. Without proof that it's legal to distribute a binary with impossible license combination, I prefer to keep cdrkit in extra until this has been cleared up with evidence. As for cdrkit being broken: it burns my cds fine, same for a lot of other users. People wishing to use cdrecord are free to do so.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Let us all remember that Arch Linux is not a for-profit company out to make a dollar on the backs of free software developers. It is likely that anyone making a license claim against Arch Linux would simply ask us to remove the offending package and leave it at that. The real risk is quite minimal and most companies I've worked for would do this without much fear until someone challenged the legality in a more official capacity. Even then, such a challenge requires money and years of time. So, I would say that putting cdrtools back in extra would be less risky than running Windows or using a credit card at a restaurant (which is how many numbers are stolen). We always have AUR or maybe the archlinux.fr guys would be willing to host it. On Jan 27, 2010 8:15 AM, Emmanuel Benisty benist...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: It seems that most o... If this is true, can't Joerg just issue an official statement that he will not sue Arch and we can close this case. or can any other party sue you when violating the GPL ?
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: Well, after thinking about it (and talk with some friends, none lawyer), I just vote for community cdrtools and dump cdrkit. I always think about supporting other operating systems, mainly FreeBSD and NetBSD, before taking place in disputes like this. If the software can be ported to more platforms, then it is better mantained was always a lemma from me (and many folks of NetBSD team :) ). So cdrtools is better quality software in my humble opinion. Cdrtools is actively checked for compilation and functionality on many platforms on a regular base on: SunOS 4.x add 5.x Linux AIX FreeBSD NetBSD OpenBSD DragonFly BSD HP-UX 10.x and 11.x Max OS X IRIX MS-WIN (Cygwin) Haiku SCO UnixWare and Openserver Syllable There is support for many more platforms but I do not have access to all of them. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 22:40, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools. You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can prove your claims. In the legal system I live in, if you have a suspicion that doing something is illegal, then you do not do it. If someone tells you that it is fine with no evidence of legal backing for that assertion and you decide to take their advise, you are legally responsible for your decision. Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: The point is that nobody of us can proof for sure if it's legal or not. So it's quite pointless to continue arguing here. We will not be able to advance in case that a single person insists in applying rules that are in conflict with legal basics. Do you really like OSS to become vulnerable against FUD from hostile people? Personally I have no objections against having a cdrtools package in our repository if someone wants to maintain it. Licenses are important, but one shouldn't be too picky about it. If I remember correctly the initial question was if it is legal to distribute a GPL licensed software build with CCDL licenses build system. Both licenses are 100% free and both parts have the same author. Well as written many times in the past already, this is a question that is extremely easy to answer: The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license. In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the OpenSource initiative: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The OSI did mark the GPL as a non-free license some years ago because some people from the FSF did write strange claims about the GPL. As a reaction, the FSF replied that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php We for this reason may safely asume that the GPL of course allows to publish two independent OSS projects in a single archive. See OSS definition paragraph 9. See the comment from the OSI in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Note that I did also send a pointer to the interpretation of the GPL made by Lawrence Rosen (the legal counsellor of the OSI) http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf I also have a private mail from Eben Moglen that confirms that a claim that a GPL project may not use a build system under a diffeent license ist just nonsense. How many proofs do you like to get? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
I recently installed KDE 4.3.4 The Leave section in the menu doesn't have power functions like shutdown and restart. How to solve this ? Also GTK apps are appearing very ugly, any suggestions ? -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 28/01/10 00:12, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 22:40, Joerg Schilling wrote: Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software. Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools. You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can prove your claims. Yes you can... and equally so can we and not package cdrtools unless you can prove yours. Even if you can prove your claim, we still can relax and do nothing. Although, as I said before, the technical merits of your project warrant it replacing cdrkit if this is ever resolved. Unfortunately, that will likely never be the case given the conclusions that can be drawn from all evidence that has been presented out so far. In the legal system I live in, if you have a suspicion that doing something is illegal, then you do not do it. If someone tells you that it is fine with no evidence of legal backing for that assertion and you decide to take their advise, you are legally responsible for your decision. Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux? No, because the only reference I can see to cdrkit being an illegal fork is in comments made by you. In my searching, I could not find an actual reason given why you think that is the case. That is extreme FUD. FUD from a single source I can ignore. FUD debated by multiple sources might actually have a basis... And this has been debated in multiple places. That is the concern here. Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:29 -0200, Johann Peter Dirichlet wrote: Well, there are some lawyer we can just consult to put a thombstone on this discussion? It will going to nowhere if we can't do this single clearing of legal issues. In fact, this is the only hurdle to put cdrtools in [community] repo (well, someone needs to adopt it, too). Seems that won't happen, because: - this discussion comes up now and then, I've seen exactly the same discussion on the fedora-legal lists without outcome - the anti-cdrtools people state that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, some have lawyers who back that statement Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. Point is, the situation is unclear and all that is done is flaming. People flame you for your weird license, you flame other people for forking your software.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Le 27/01/2010 15:12, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Just a (not so) funny thought about FUD from hostile people and stuff: Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux? Did you prove it to be illegal? You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can prove your claims. -- Thomas/Schnouki
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools. You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can prove your claims. Yes you can... and equally so can we and not package cdrtools unless you can prove yours. Even if you can prove your claim, we still can relax and do nothing. Although, as I said before, the technical merits of your project warrant it replacing cdrkit if this is ever resolved. Unfortunately, that will likely never be the case given the conclusions that can be drawn from all evidence that has been presented out so far. I am sorry that you do not accept our legal rules and that you are vulnerable for FUD from a single person (in this case Eduard Bloch). The fact that other people have also become a victim of attacks from this person does not count as Bloch never has been able to show a confirmation for his attacks. Unless you start following common rules, it seems that you just like to play a game with me. It does not seem to bring us anywhere and replying to future mail from you looks like wasted time unless you accept to follow common legal rules. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. I did, but there was not a single legally valid statement made by a lawyer. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 28/01/10 00:31, Joerg Schilling wrote: The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license. In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the OpenSource initiative: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The OSI did mark the GPL as a non-free license some years ago because some people from the FSF did write strange claims about the GPL. As a reaction, the FSF replied that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php We for this reason may safely asume that the GPL of course allows to publish two independent OSS projects in a single archive. See OSS definition paragraph 9. This is where your argument fails and it has been the stumbling block in all previous debates on this issue. The GPL may allow separate projects to be distributed in the one tarball, but it considers scripts necessary to build a project part of the same project. This is the issue. You claim they are separate projects; others claim the GPL does not allow that. Your evidence that this is allowable is a mysterious private email that apparently says all is OK... That is almost insurmountable. If a lawyer provided a statement saying that it was legal and was prepared provide a defense in case of any issues, then we may be able to talk about this again. Until that point, nothing productive can be achieved discussing this issue, so I will not continue reading this thread. Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Thomas Jost thomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: Le 27/01/2010 15:12, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Just a (not so) funny thought about FUD from hostile people and stuff: Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux? Did you prove it to be illegal? Well, someone in this list just told me that the rules for Arch Linux are that someone from Cdrkit would need to prove that there is no legal problem with cdrkit. Could we agree on a unique method for dealing with claims please? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 28/01/10 00:31, Joerg Schilling wrote: The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license. In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the OpenSource initiative: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The OSI did mark the GPL as a non-free license some years ago because some people from the FSF did write strange claims about the GPL. As a reaction, the FSF replied that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php We for this reason may safely asume that the GPL of course allows to publish two independent OSS projects in a single archive. See OSS definition paragraph 9. This is where your argument fails and it has been the stumbling block in all previous debates on this issue. The GPL may allow separate projects to be distributed in the one tarball, but it considers scripts necessary to build a project part of the same project. This is the issue. You claim they are separate projects; others claim the GPL does not allow that. Your evidence that this is allowable is a mysterious private email that apparently says all is OK... That is almost insurmountable. If a lawyer provided a statement saying that it was legal and was prepared provide a defense in case of any issues, then we may be able to talk about this again. Until that point, nothing productive can be achieved discussing this issue, so I will not continue reading this thread. Allan
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Le 27/01/2010 15:56, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Thomas Jost thomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: Le 27/01/2010 15:12, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements: Just a (not so) funny thought about FUD from hostile people and stuff: Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux? Did you prove it to be illegal? Well, someone in this list just told me that the rules for Arch Linux are that someone from Cdrkit would need to prove that there is no legal problem with cdrkit. Could we agree on a unique method for dealing with claims please? Jörg You said earlier that _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. You are telling cdrkit is illegal. Follow your own rule. Prove cdrkit to be illegal. If you can't, there's no point in continuing this discussion. -- Thomas/Schnouki
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
2010/1/27 Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com: I recently installed KDE 4.3.4 The Leave section in the menu doesn't have power functions like shutdown and restart. How to solve this ? Do you use KDM as display manager? If yes, check in the Login configuration (System Settings-Login screen-Shutdown tab) that your user is actually allowed to do things like that. Also GTK apps are appearing very ugly, any suggestions ? You should probably install a GTK theme. QtCurve is a possibility, very flexible and provides a uniform theme among KDE3, KDE4 and GTK applications. When you installed that, create a link inside your home directory: cd ~ ln -s /usr/share/themes/QtCurve/gtk-2.0/gtkrc .gtkrc-2.0 Kind regards, -- Bram Schoenmakers What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (Punch, 1855)
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Thomas Jost thomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: You said earlier that _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. You are telling cdrkit is illegal. Follow your own rule. Prove cdrkit to be illegal. If you can't, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Well Bloch was the first who claimed that there is a problem with the original software. If _you_ claim that there is a problem with the original software, _you_ need to prove this _first_. If we like to advance, _you_ need to follow common legal rules and do not base your behavior on FUD as it just has been shown by e.g. Allan McRae who completely ignores common rules and who just confirmed that he did not even read the GPL. BTW: I did of course prove my claims: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html just read http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html I am really sorry to see that you we are running in circles because some people do not like to follow common rules for their decisions. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
2010/1/27 Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com: I recently installed KDE 4.3.4 The Leave section in the menu doesn't have power functions like shutdown and restart. How to solve this ? There are two answer: 1) Are your user in the power group? 2) You start KDE with a login manager like GDM/KDM/slim or with .xinitrc and startx. Also GTK apps are appearing very ugly, any suggestions ? You could install qtcurve-gtk2 qtcurve-kde4 and manage them with gtk-theme-switch2 Alberto -- Bonacina Alberto email: bonacina.albe...@gmail.com Per favore, non mandatemi allegati in Word o PowerPoint http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.it.html Sai perche' GNU/Linux e' meglio? http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/index_it.php
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:10 +0100, Alberto Bonacina wrote: 2010/1/27 Nilesh Govindarajan li...@itech7.com: I recently installed KDE 4.3.4 The Leave section in the menu doesn't have power functions like shutdown and restart. How to solve this ? There are two answer: 1) Are your user in the power group? 2) You start KDE with a login manager like GDM/KDM/slim or with .xinitrc and startx. Also GTK apps are appearing very ugly, any suggestions ? You could install qtcurve-gtk2 qtcurve-kde4 and manage them with gtk-theme-switch2 1) Power group? Damn, that's old. Does KDE still use that? 2) Using a display manager that supports ConsoleKit should fix this issue. KDM/GDM are two display managers that have native support for ConsoleKit, others need pam modules and/or ck-launch-session.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 04:31 AM, Allan McRae wrote: Joerg, The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions. Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear trollish with your replies. Maybe we will move to GNU mkisofs/isofsmk as development appears to have started there (I can troll too...). Allan Joerg, What is in this for you? By that, I mean, why are you fighting so hard to get this pushed into the official repos? It is in aur with 130 votes and likely there are hundreds more users. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=323 There is one thing with Arch that I think you are missing. The arch devs do what they want. They include software only that they use/want to maintain. In the past they have included software in which licensing wasn't quite clear. As it has been stated many times none of the devs are lawyers. These software programs were a much lower risk to include compared to cdrtools. Said programs did not have the arguments and possible legal issues that cdrtools is currently faced with. Granted if a suite was to be brought against arch, specifically the dev hosting it and the owner of the project (Aaron), they would likely be asked to remove it. I find this risk relatively low and I'd give +1 to add it to the repos (from a users prospective). Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to the hiring of a lawyer). Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to take the risk. Why don't you create a repo with cdrtools for arch? It isn't hard to do. That way anyone who wants to use cdrtools would have an easy way to obtain updates, etc... pyther
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
2010/1/27 Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net: 1) Power group? Damn, that's old. Does KDE still use that? I don't know if it's old but the beginners guide [1] tolds that when you want to create a new users you should put him in the power group to e.g.: shutdown with power button. [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide#Step_4:_Add_a_user_and_setup_groups -- Bonacina Alberto email: bonacina.albe...@gmail.com Per favore, non mandatemi allegati in Word o PowerPoint http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.it.html Sai perche' GNU/Linux e' meglio? http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/index_it.php
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:20 +0100, Alberto Bonacina wrote: 2010/1/27 Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net: 1) Power group? Damn, that's old. Does KDE still use that? I don't know if it's old but the beginners guide [1] tolds that when you want to create a new users you should put him in the power group to e.g.: shutdown with power button. [1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide#Step_4:_Add_a_user_and_setup_groups With consolekit and the fixed ACL management in the latest package of udev none of that should be required anymore.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising. I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable. People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands. Aren't there two questions here, though? 1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit? Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here. There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages. As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well. So why isn't the decision tree: be most cautious legally, and distribute neither be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools. -- Jim Pryor j...@jimpryor.net
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Am Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:43:27 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: Yes you can... and equally so can we and not package cdrtools unless you can prove yours. Even if you can prove your claim, we still can relax and do nothing. Although, as I said before, the technical merits of your project warrant it replacing cdrkit if this is ever resolved. Unfortunately, that will likely never be the case given the conclusions that can be drawn from all evidence that has been presented out so far. ... No, because the only reference I can see to cdrkit being an illegal fork is in comments made by you. In my searching, I could not find an actual reason given why you think that is the case. That is extreme FUD. FUD from a single source I can ignore. FUD debated by multiple sources might actually have a basis... And this has been debated in multiple places. That is the concern here. Ok, people, can you, please, stop this stupid flame war? It's really boring, annoying and really stupid! Sorry to say that. Allan, what do you have against Jörg? Jörg, some of your comments are also not quite productive. This doesn't seem to be a legal issue but a pure personal one. 1. Both is free and opensource software so this shouldn't matter. Read what Robert Howard has written in this thread. 2. Jörg as the author and seeming copyright holder of both software cdrecord and mkisofs has already stated that he has no problem with the release of cdrtools (linking cdrecord against mkisofs) and won't sue you. 3. Both programs are released in the same package cdrtools. So why should there be a legal issue? 4. In the package ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/cdrtools-2.01.tar.gz I can't find anything about the CDDL. I can only find the GPLv2 and a file with some - sorry Jörg - childish (the comment about the config path) or unnecessary (the comment about the copyright) restrictions of the GPL. So where is the legal licensing issue? What is technically better from an objective point of view, cdrtools or cdrkit? If cdrkit is better then keep cdrkit. If cdrtools is better then dump cdrkit and move cdrtools to [extra]. If someone thinks he needs to sue you then you still can revert to cdrkit. But, please, stop this pointless (personal) flame war! Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500 schrieb pyther pyt...@pyther.net: Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to the hiring of a lawyer). Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to take the risk. I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything. If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first distro to be sued? And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are both licensed under the GPLv2. Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:15:14 +0700 schrieb Emmanuel Benisty benist...@gmail.com: If this is true, can't Joerg just issue an official statement that he will not sue Arch and we can close this case. or can any other party sue you when violating the GPL ? Jörg already did this in this thread. Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. Point is, the situation is unclear and all that is done is flaming. People flame you for your weird license, you flame other people for forking your software. Mr Schilling reminds me quite a bit of that Ion guy who was overly hostile and trollish. That clears up the situation just fine for me.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/25/2010 02:46 PM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote: Hello, My question is: this is relevant in Arch Linux? I guess that in general there are no strong rules about license issues under Arch Linux. I remember well, that some time ago, I asked some things about some packages readline (GPL) and BSD license. One comment, if I remember correctly, is that strictly speaking there would be problems between OpenSSL and software that makes use of it. Finally the conclusion was something like: Why discuss this? Everything is free software!. So: Why is the opposition? Why comply with details in this particular case and in all other not? All is free software at all! PS: If there's one thing I love about Arch Linux is that it does not care about this great parody/paradox about licensing. Good day \forall The discussion continued in other branches and I quote my message that was ignored. I'd like to read the answers to these questions if they were so kind. So I think that discussions about compatibility of licenses are meaningless. Leaving aside what really matters is functionality. Thank you. -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:39 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: 2. Jörg as the author and seeming copyright holder of both software cdrecord and mkisofs has already stated that he has no problem with the release of cdrtools (linking cdrecord against mkisofs) and won't sue you. If he would be the full copyright holder of mkisofs, he would have re-licensed it to CDDL also, solving the whole problem.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: 4. In the package ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/cdrtools-2.01.tar.gz I can't find anything about the CDDL. I can only find the GPLv2 and a file with some - sorry Jörg - childish (the comment about the config path) or unnecessary (the comment about the copyright) restrictions of the GPL. cdrtools-2.01 is from 2004. You'll want to look at something more recent: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/cdrtools-2.01.01a73.tar.gz -- Byron Clark
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
- the anti-cdrtools people state that CDDL and GPL are incompatible, some have lawyers who back that statement - the pro-cdrtools guy states that the lawyers are wrong, backed by other statements from other lawyers Hmm...lawyers, self-serving bunch if you ask me ;) But seriously, this whole thread ist ridiculous. Tom
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. Point is, the situation is unclear and all that is done is flaming. People flame you for your weird license, you flame other people for forking your software. Mr Schilling reminds me quite a bit of that Ion guy who was overly hostile and trollish. That clears up the situation just fine for me. What I'm seeing here is that Jörg is being his usual self, combative but mostly correct. Allan is pissed off at him. Aaron is cautious and heading towards angry. A couple of other people are a little bit cautious. The rest of the participants, which is most of them, are in favor of switching back from cdrkit to cdrtools. Let me also add my support for putting cdrtools into [extra] (probably [community] is not good enough as I think there are deps in [extra] on cdrkit right now.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500 schrieb pyther pyt...@pyther.net: Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to the hiring of a lawyer). Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to take the risk. I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything. If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first distro to be sued? And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are both licensed under the GPLv2. Greetings, Heiko here's a proposal for the future of this discussion: 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless directly questioned. 2) Allan: ditto. 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn. 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final approval/veto over the proposal that emerges. Anyone? -kludge
Re: [arch-general] KDE 4.3 no power functions ?
Thanks all. Using KDM (inittab, previously GDM) fixed the power problem. Okay is it possible to apply GTK themes to KDE ? I think no cause KDE uses QT. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Site Server Adminstrator www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 11:18 AM, kludge wrote: On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500 schrieb pytherpyt...@pyther.net: Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to the hiring of a lawyer). Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to take the risk. I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything. If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first distro to be sued? And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are both licensed under the GPLv2. Greetings, Heiko here's a proposal for the future of this discussion: 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless directly questioned. 2) Allan: ditto. 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn. 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final approval/veto over the proposal that emerges. Anyone? -kludge I disagree. Allan should be able to participate because he is a core developer. However, I think this needs to go to arch-dev-public or maybe better yet arch-dev-private (if this issue isn't already there). From that point the developers can talk among themselves what they want to do as it is their project. Then if they choice they can let use know the results. This isn't a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Luckily the dictators are nice and listen to the community every now and then. ~pyther
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
By the way, why Joerg ask that Allan do the jobs about legal stuff ? That Joerg that want that cdrkit go to official repo. Not Allan. I'm not right ?
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
2010/1/27 kludge drklu...@rat-patrol.org: On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500 schrieb pyther pyt...@pyther.net: Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to the hiring of a lawyer). Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to take the risk. I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything. If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first distro to be sued? And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are both licensed under the GPLv2. Greetings, Heiko here's a proposal for the future of this discussion: 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless directly questioned. 2) Allan: ditto. 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn. 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final approval/veto over the proposal that emerges. Anyone? -kludge I agree! :) except the first and second clauses. Just completing my reasoning... In my opinion, the problem is not the fork attitude, but the bad quality of fork. An example: OpenBSD is a fork from NetBSD, it was a history of strong ego combat too, but it is a good quality fork, a so good fork that many operating systems (BSDs and Linux, also some others) and even software maintainers look at it as an example of stability and security. That is not the case for cdrkit. It has a lower quality than the original software. In fact, I lost some DVD discs with wodim :( but it is just with me (many people say that cdrkit is buggy, many people say that is good). Shilly is a very energic person, and sometimes it reinforces their own opinions in a little polite way sometimes. It makes this comments sound But, talking outspoken, to hell with this frakkin' licensing way! That is not the problem here. cdrkit is a badly maintained software, cdrtools is far well updated and maintained, and both are free softwares. So, dump or AUR cdrkit, and if some day someone would complain with cdrtools, simply put cdrkit back (or create a fork of it again :D)
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Johann Peter Dirichlet peterdirichlet.freesoftw...@gmail.com wrote: That is not the case for cdrkit. It has a lower quality than the original software. In fact, I lost some DVD discs with wodim :( but it is just with me (many people say that cdrkit is buggy, many people say that is good). There is a simple reason for this problem: I added DVD support to cdrecord in February 1998. The original DVD support code is (as you can see) 12 years old and I would call it mature. Wodim dumped the original DVD support code and replaced it by some half baken code written by a guy from Mandriva. This code does not even read the media parameters from the blank media (as you can prove by calling cdrecord -atip vs. wodim -atip). Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. Point is, the situation is unclear and all that is done is flaming. People flame you for your weird license, you flame other people for forking your software. Mr Schilling reminds me quite a bit of that Ion guy who was overly hostile and trollish. That clears up the situation just fine for me. Well I thought about that too, and I believe there is one huge difference : tuomov explicitly imposed a lot of restrictions in packaging, and apparently didn't want or didn't care at all if Arch packaged it or not. If it is packaged, it has to be under his terms. If it isn't, who cares. His interest seemed to not have it packaged, as he believes that would mean less problems and less bug reports for him. Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and use. According to him, wodim is completely broken, so surely the majority of Arch users either notice it themselves or are told by other people, and will switch to AUR cdrecord. Even if that's not the case (2 possibilities : wodim is not as broken as Joerg pretends, or arch users are clueless), is Arch really noticeable compared to the big distrib ? I am curious to know if anyone has pointers to estimates of linux distribution userbase, but I doubt Arch would matter. And seriously, if the goal is world domination, making Debian/Ubuntu an enemy is a very efficient way for failing.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
2010/1/27 Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:45 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Just to make it clear: There is not a single claim from a lawyer that confirms the claims from the hostile downstram packager. Looking through the thread on the fedora list they claim there's lawyers confirmed it, but in the same thread you say they're not lawyers. Point is, the situation is unclear and all that is done is flaming. People flame you for your weird license, you flame other people for forking your software. Mr Schilling reminds me quite a bit of that Ion guy who was overly hostile and trollish. That clears up the situation just fine for me. Well I thought about that too, and I believe there is one huge difference : tuomov explicitly imposed a lot of restrictions in packaging, and apparently didn't want or didn't care at all if Arch packaged it or not. If it is packaged, it has to be under his terms. If it isn't, who cares. His interest seemed to not have it packaged, as he believes that would mean less problems and less bug reports for him. Sorry about the dumb question, but can you post a link for the tuomov restrictions? This is about cdrtools or cdrkit? Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and use. According to him, wodim is completely broken, so surely the majority of Arch users either notice it themselves or are told by other people, and will switch to AUR cdrecord. This is about mainstream maintaining. Why the buggy software is actively maintained, precompiled with binaries for i686 and x86_64, and the good software is tagged as unmaintained? Even if that's not the case (2 possibilities : wodim is not as broken as Joerg pretends, or arch users are clueless), is Arch really noticeable compared to the big distrib ? Well, Archlinux is a good distro with a very active crew, and it is a growing distro indeed. And now the maintainer of a big and famous piece of software is actively endorsing your software in that list! I think Archlinux is a noticeable distro indeed. I am curious to know if anyone has pointers to estimates of linux distribution userbase, but I doubt Arch would matter. And seriously, if the goal is world domination, making Debian/Ubuntu an enemy is a very efficient way for failing.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
At Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 12:51 Allan McRae wrote: Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. This has been repeatedly asked of you I'm with you because it would be very nice to have this report but because in life all have two sides in the most cases i have to ask you for the same: Where is the report from a single laywer which supports the arguments of debian? Sorry ,if i makes you angry because this is NOT my intention. But what i really miss during this most useless discussion about a software for linux is that no one of both sides hire a laywer and see what happens in reality inf front of a court instead of voting. This would be better for everybody of us than this kind of confrontation. See you, Attila
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com wrote: Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and use. According to him, wodim is completely broken, so surely the majority of Arch users either notice it themselves or are told by other people, and will switch to AUR cdrecord. Even if that's not the case (2 possibilities : wodim is not as broken as Joerg pretends, or arch users are clueless), is Arch really If you believe the fork is not broken, then you don't seem to use it. wodim does not deal with hald and has many other problems including missing DVD support. genisoimage does not support UTF-8 and large files and creates filesystem images with lots of bugs. If you don't notice, well Wait until you like to read the filesystem from a OS that does nto tolerate the bugs from genisoimage ;-) Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
On 01/26/2010 06:37 PM, Carlos Williams wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Fagianiandfagi...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] Yeah I will review the Wiki again in more detail. I have never installed anything from AUR but assume it's pretty straight forward. I will try your suggested packages... Thanks! Installing from the AUR is kind of a pain, I'd suggest that the first package you get is yaourt. It lets you install directly from the AUR install of downloading individual files and then running makepkg.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Attila vodoo0...@sonnenkinder.org wrote: Sorry ,if i makes you angry because this is NOT my intention. But what i really miss during this most useless discussion about a software for linux is that no one of both sides hire a laywer and see what happens in reality inf front of a court instead of voting. This would be better for everybody of us than this kind of confrontation. I am in contact with several lawyers but if you don't pay a lawyer, you get help but not the permission to publish the statements. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 11:19 AM, Xavier Chantry wrote: Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and use. According to him, wodim is completely broken, so surely the majority of Arch users either notice it themselves or are told by other people, and will switch to AUR cdrecord. Perhaps he's annoyed because he wrote a big important piece of software and everyone refuses to use it because of BS claims that he's going to sue them. Wouldn't it make you angry if you went to the trouble to write something like this and everyone ditched it over claims by someone who just wants to make their shitty fork popular? Or maybe he doesn't like making things a huge pain in the ass for his users. Installing cdrtools from the AUR isn't exactly obvious or easy. Even if you do learn about this (like I did from this thread), yaourt -S cdrtools doesn't work (it automatically installs cdrkit instead). -Brendan Long
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 08:00 AM, Thomas Jost wrote: Le 27/01/2010 15:56, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Thomas Jostthomas.j...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] Well, someone in this list just told me that the rules for Arch Linux are that someone from Cdrkit would need to prove that there is no legal problem with cdrkit. Could we agree on a unique method for dealing with claims please? Jörg You said earlier that _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original software. You are telling cdrkit is illegal. Follow your own rule. Prove cdrkit to be illegal. If you can't, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Wait so if someone says that cdrtools is illegal, he has to prove that it's not, but if someone says that cdrkit is illegal, he has to prove that it is? Will you be my lawyer?
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Brendan Long kori...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/27/2010 11:19 AM, Xavier Chantry wrote: Joerg on the other hand seems to care a lot about the inclusion of his software in the official Arch repository. Actually, I really wonder like pyther : What is in this for him?. The software is already in AUR, which every Arch users know and use. According to him, wodim is completely broken, so surely the majority of Arch users either notice it themselves or are told by other people, and will switch to AUR cdrecord. Perhaps he's annoyed because he wrote a big important piece of software and everyone refuses to use it because of BS claims that he's going to sue them. Wouldn't it make you angry if you went to the trouble to write something like this and everyone ditched it over claims by someone who just wants to make their shitty fork popular? Not to sound trite, but if I was in this situation, I would attempt to provide as much factual evidence as possible, rather than call people names, rant a lot, and never provide anything more than hearsay. Science: it works, bitches
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/27/2010 09:43 AM, Johann Peter Dirichlet wrote: cdrkit is a badly maintained software, cdrtools is far well updated and maintained, and both are free softwares. So, dump or AUR cdrkit, and if some day someone would complain with cdrtools, simply put cdrkit back (or create a fork of it again :D) This seems like the obvious solution. Can anyone explain what the problem with this is? You could always ask the guy who's been maintaining it on the AUR to maintain it in the official repos. -Brendan Long
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Or we could distribute both and hope that the resultant time/anti-time explosion is such that the universe is destroyed and we never have to bother worrying about such pointless, unproductive, made-up bullshit again in our lifetimes On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Jim Pryor lists+arch-gene...@jimpryor.netlists%2barch-gene...@jimpryor.net wrote: Wow, this thread got very hot very fast. I composed this about an hour ago, when things were much cooler. But the questions still seem worth raising. I understand Joerg's frustration about the burden of proof issue here, and I also understand Allan's and Phrakture's reluctance, in the light of our not having more solid evidence from disinterested parties. Apparently Joerg has seen more such evidence, but is not in a position to provide it. That's unfortunate, but understandable. People are getting alternately enthusiastic, and frustrated, and annoyed with each other, but that seems to be about where this stands. Aren't there two questions here, though? 1. Should we distribute binaries of cdrtools? 2. Should we distribute binaries of cdrkit? Setting 1 aside for the moment, it sounds to me---not based wholly on this thread, but this thread exhausts my recent reading on the issue---like there are possible legal issues with 2, and in fact it sounds to me like the case for that is rather stronger than the case for there being legal issues with 1. That impression survives even if the case against cdrkit does all trace back to claims made by Joerg---which I don't know to be so but which has been alleged here. There are technical reasons for thinking cdrtools is much preferable to cdrkit; however that leaves it open whether cdrkit is or isn't good enough for the needs that prompt us to distribute a binary of either of these packages. As I said I do understand the reasons given for hesitating about cdrtools. But it sounds to me like cdrkit survives equally careful scrutiny less well. So why isn't the decision tree: be most cautious legally, and distribute neither be moderately cautious legally, in which case although it's not obvious cdrtools is in the clear, the case against cdrkit seems stronger, so if one is to be distributed it should be cdrtools trust other distros, and decide we're clear to distribute either, in which case the technical merits again speak for cdrtools. -- Jim Pryor j...@jimpryor.net
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
At Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 20:59 Joerg Schilling wrote: I am in contact with several lawyers but if you don't pay a lawyer, you get help but not the permission to publish the statements. Good luck for it and i hope this story could find his end. And i want to take the opportunity to thank you for cdrtools which i use now under linux and in the past under OS/2. See you, Attila
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:55 -0700, Brendan Long wrote: On 01/26/2010 06:37 PM, Carlos Williams wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Fagianiandfagi...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] Yeah I will review the Wiki again in more detail. I have never installed anything from AUR but assume it's pretty straight forward. I will try your suggested packages... Thanks! Installing from the AUR is kind of a pain, I'd suggest that the first package you get is yaourt. It lets you install directly from the AUR install of downloading individual files and then running makepkg. Bad advise, IMHO. yaourt is a helper, not meant to be a pacman replacement. To Andrea, you should learn to download the PKGBUILD and all accompanying files first (to a directory you have write access to) and how to edit PKGBUILDs and run makepkg. Once you've got passing familiarity with that then using yaourt does save time. Basically, if you start off with yaourt, you're screwed if things break somewhere down the line, since you won't know what's happening behind the scenes, as it were.
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:43 -0600, Burlynn Corlew Jr wrote: 2010/1/27 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 12:55 -0700, Brendan Long wrote: On 01/26/2010 06:37 PM, Carlos Williams wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Fagianiandfagi...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] Yeah I will review the Wiki again in more detail. I have never installed anything from AUR but assume it's pretty straight forward. I will try your suggested packages... Thanks! Installing from the AUR is kind of a pain, I'd suggest that the first package you get is yaourt. It lets you install directly from the AUR install of downloading individual files and then running makepkg. Bad advise, IMHO. yaourt is a helper, not meant to be a pacman replacement. To Andrea, you should learn to download the PKGBUILD and all accompanying files first (to a directory you have write access to) and how to edit PKGBUILDs and run makepkg. Once you've got passing familiarity with that then using yaourt does save time. Basically, if you start off with yaourt, you're screwed if things break somewhere down the line, since you won't know what's happening behind the scenes, as it were. I agree with this a 100%. I do not mind people using automated package builders, but you need to be aware of whats going on. The IRC channel regularly gets people that have run into exactly this, people being told to use yaourt initially then when a build fails they have no idea how to troubleshoot. I'm really not convinced automated builders are very k.i.s.s., but we are a binary based distro so I won't get into that. My concern is not necessarily KISS (its open to interpretation much of the time) but that in Arch, users MUST know what's going on in their system, without too much abstraction.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: Hi, Leaving all the licenses and legal issues aside, Q) Which is better out of the two? please respond purely on technical basis. Everything has been said, you just need to read it. Users demand working software and thus request cdrtools. It is up to the distros to follow the demands of their users or to ignore it. BTW: I have been asked by people from Arch Linux to help with this discussion. I was not prepared that one or two people act extremely stubborn and that I do not get help from the marority that seems to prefer the original software. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] how to Map shortcut keys in KDE4.3 to lunch custom Applications?
Gaurish Sharma wrote: Hi All, I am using KDE 4.3 Desktop on Archlinux 64bit. I have query regarding Custom keyboard shortcuts. I have few extra hotkeys on my keyboard(Microsoft Basic wired Keyboard 500). They keys have already mapped and few of them work too. Play does play/pause in amarok. However few keys do not work. I want to map these these to do some actions. like I want the calc hotkey to launch a application speedcrunch. I think this has something to with Khotkeys configration, But I haven't been able to figure out how exactly to configure khotkeys due to lack of documentation. So I need your help, How to map Custom Keyboard Shortcuts to launch custom Application on KDE4.3? Have you tried extra/keytouch[-editor]? -- X.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Hi, Atleast, you have my vote, I building cdrtools from AUR as we speak. there is no point of using unmaintned software. Anyone, How can we setup cdrtools to completely replace cdrkit so that other programs like k3b can use seamlessly ? Any guides, I didn't find anything on ArchLinux Wiki which is kinda strange. One more thing cdrtools required it to be run as root, isn't that dangerous. any method by which we give the required permissions to normal user? Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: Hi, Leaving all the licenses and legal issues aside, Q) Which is better out of the two? please respond purely on technical basis. Everything has been said, you just need to read it. Users demand working software and thus request cdrtools. It is up to the distros to follow the demands of their users or to ignore it. BTW: I have been asked by people from Arch Linux to help with this discussion. I was not prepared that one or two people act extremely stubborn and that I do not get help from the marority that seems to prefer the original software. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: There was a very simple suggestion some message ago, why not dual-license the CDDL parts of cdrtools and be done with any and all the FUD (from any side), all the anomisity, and trolling. Or the other way around: put mkisofs under CDDL, so the package has a homogeneous license? -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ---
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Gaurish Sharma cont...@gaurishsharma.com wrote: One more thing cdrtools required it to be run as root, isn't that dangerous. any method by which we give the required permissions to normal user? There are two possible solutions: 1) Look at the turkish Linux distro that delivers a complete uncastrated Linux, create a linux distro that includes the needed features (make sure that these features cannot be unconfigured) and send me a version so I can start implementing support for fine grained privileges on Linux into cdrtools. 2) Continue to deliver a reduced Linux that does not give you the choice for a different solution and live with the consequences that force you to install cdrecord/readcd/cdda2wav suid root in order to gain the needed privileges. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Pressing for legal info may be the natural reflex, but associated subjects are best dealt with caution. Maybe he's not in a position were he can divulge this, and is now eating the words he said when publishing details would've been unproblematic. You're getting a first hand response that it's ok to use it. Andres
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
Gaurish Sharma wrote: Hi, Leaving all the licenses and legal issues aside, Q) Which is better out of the two? please respond purely on technical basis. A) cdrtools, period. Especially if you try to burn DVDs with long, non- ascii (read 'utf8') filenames, labels and other weird stuff. I had lost quite a few DVDs in the past before I remembered that it was cdrkit the burner and not cdrtools. But, the developer of cdrtools... that's another story. In this thread alone, he's been asked at least twice why he doesn't dual-license cdrtools and he conveniently ignored it. Herr Schilling, why don't you dual-license (or, best, single-license to GPL) cdrtools? -- X.
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
One thing that haven't been mentioned: Have you installed any ttf fonts, or do you only have the font packages in the xorg group? If you haven't installed any extra ttf fonts, then do so, dejavu, bistream, ms fonts and the freefonts are usually good choices.
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:19 +0100, stefan-husm...@t-online.de wrote: Hello, the only reason I did not move cdrtools to community was that license reason. So if that is no showstopper anymore, I can maintain it. Regards Stefan I just checked alpha10, one of the first versions that was released as CDDL, that also has that exception. It seems that GPL and CDDL have some conflicting paragraphs, so even if CDDL allows linking to GPL with this exception, GPL doesn't allow the other way around. So no, releasing as binary is still not possible when it comes to mkisofs. mkisofs is still plain GPL without exceptions. That could be the reason of this new project... https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=6137 The link in the announcement is broken, but it is easy to find in the same ftp, and the Download links in the top leads directly to it : http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/isofsmk/ If mkisofs is the only doubtful part, why not replacing only mkisofs ? Wouldn't that be better than replacing everything ? Joerg already said that mkisofs received the most code changes, and that genisoimage was quite problematic : genisoimage does not support UTF-8 and large files and creates filesystem images with lots of bugs. I am sure he will have plenty of nice things to say about isofsmk as well ! Anyway, if it was up to me, I would not replace anything, I would just provide everything, and give the power to the user. Either all as packages, or all as pkgbuilds in AUR, to not make anyone jealous.
Re: [arch-general] First Time Arch w/ Gnome Installed
On 01/27/2010 03:47 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:43 -0600, Burlynn Corlew Jr wrote: 2010/1/27 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com [snip] Bad advise, IMHO. yaourt is a helper, not meant to be a pacman replacement. To Andrea, you should learn to download the PKGBUILD and all accompanying files first (to a directory you have write access to) and how to edit PKGBUILDs and run makepkg. Once you've got passing familiarity with that then using yaourt does save time. Basically, if you start off with yaourt, you're screwed if things break somewhere down the line, since you won't know what's happening behind the scenes, as it were. I agree with this a 100%. I do not mind people using automated package builders, but you need to be aware of whats going on. The IRC channel regularly gets people that have run into exactly this, people being told to use yaourt initially then when a build fails they have no idea how to troubleshoot. I'm really not convinced automated builders are very k.i.s.s., but we are a binary based distro so I won't get into that. My concern is not necessarily KISS (its open to interpretation much of the time) but that in Arch, users MUST know what's going on in their system, without too much abstraction. The difference between yaourt and building yourself isn't that significant. Without yaourt: - Download all files to a directory - Type makepkg - Type pacman -U packagename.pkg.tar.gz With yaourt: - Type yaourt -S packagename It's important to now how PKGBUILD files work (and read them when you install from the AUR), but all yaourt does is simplify minor steps. The most major step (reading the PKGBUILD) isn't forced on the AUR, but is suggested WITH BIG SCARY WORDS with yaourt. Just my thoughts on the matter. -Brendan Long
Re: [arch-general] how to Map shortcut keys in KDE4.3 to lunch custom Applications?
On Thursday 28 January 2010 03:42:27 Gaurish Sharma wrote: I was able to launch Amarok via the extra media key present on my keyboard. been using the exact same method for speedcrunch, it does not work :( Pl. follow these steps and tell us if it worked. - Go to system settings - input actions - right click on an empty space in the left side pane, select new group, give it a name. There is a box on right hand side of that tree, that is a checkbox, enable/check it. - right click on the newly created tree node, select new - global shortcut - command/URL. A similar node will be created, name it and enable it as above - Click on the newly created node, fill in action and the shortcut - click apply. I repeated same steps exactly and managed to map ksudoku to Ctrl+U. HTH -- Regards Shridhar
[arch-general] [signoff] inetutils 1.7-2
Hi, inetutils-1.7-2 is in testing. The localstatedir was fixed (FS#17981). Please test and signoff. Users signoff will be appreciated as not a lot of devs use these tools. Eric
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
At Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2010 00:14 Gaurish Sharma wrote:
Anyone,
How can we setup cdrtools to completely replace cdrkit so that other
programs like k3b can use seamlessly ? Any guides, I didn't find
anything on ArchLinux Wiki which is kinda strange.
The hard way only for your system:
pkgname=cdrecord
_pkgname=cdrtools
...
conflicts=('cdrkit' 'cdrtools')
provides=('cdrkit')
...
I have no cdrkit here because i don't need it and i don't need the sysmlinks
inside of the package.
One more thing
cdrtools required it to be run as root, isn't that dangerous. any
method by which we give the required permissions to normal user?
I change the permissions in the install file in this way:
/bin/echo Change Owner, Group and Permission to root.optical (4710) ...
for n in /usr/bin/cdrecord \
/usr/bin/readcd \
/usr/bin/cdda2wav;
do
/bin/chown -v root:optical $n /bin/chmod -v 4710 $n;
done
/bin/echo done.
Than the user has only to be in the group optical. It works but perhaps a
expert
should say if this is okay.
See you, Attila
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
2010/1/28 Xavier Chantry chantry.xav...@gmail.com: Anyway, if it was up to me, I would not replace anything, I would just provide everything, and give the power to the user. Either all as packages, or all as pkgbuilds in AUR, to not make anyone jealous. The latter sounds like the more probable solution :) -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] libcap-2.19-1
On 01/28/2010 02:22 AM, Allan McRae wrote: On 21/01/10 22:22, Ronald van Haren wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org wrote: Upstream update. No changes of note... Signoff both, Allan samba/proftpd still work here. signoff x86_64 Do I hear an i686? no issues with ls and ntp. Unofficial sign-off i686 and x86_64. -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit
On 01/28/2010 03:48 AM, Attila wrote: I change the permissions in the install file in this way: /bin/echo Change Owner, Group and Permission to root.optical (4710) ... Hi, don't need all root privileges/capabilities. Only cap_sys_admin, cap_sys_rawio for some special SCSI commands and cap_sys_resource for incresing resource limits. setcap cap_sys_admin,cap_sys_rawio,cap_sys_resource+ep /usr/bin/cdrecord thats all ;) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
