Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Adam Lantos wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski > wrote: > > - it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and > > uncertainties - now and in the future > > he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles :) Let me correct yoour typo: It should read: They certainly are not interested in ending these pointless battles :) note that these pointless battles have been initated by Debian and as long as people spread FUD about my software, I need to correct. 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] Burning From Command Line
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski wrote: > - it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and > uncertainties - now and in the future he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles :)
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
>> Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a >> licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it >> under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless >> instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? >> >> It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the >> licensing. > > The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD > spread by Debian. > > Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken > and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). > > I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a > non-existent problem. You didn't create CD Recording drives either but still you introduced a solution to the problem of writing to them. So, why should that stop you now? People ask you to simply dual-license it because: - it's almost NO effort to you - it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and uncertainties - now and in the future - it will show your good will to engage in discussions - people might prefer GPL in some jurisdictions even if you think it's bullshit -- damjan
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Attila wrote: > Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only > as > a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical > things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really > don't > understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and > which In case there was no decision from a court, there is only one halfway reliable method to deal with the problem: Check the claims of both parties and try to understand whether they are able to prove their claims with legal theories. Debian spreads claims that are in obvious conflict with the GPL license text and Debian uses a GPl interpretation that would make the GPL a definitely non-free license acording to the OpenSource definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Moglen sent me trustworthy legal theories in private at the time when he confirmed that there is no legal problem with the original software. Moglen did never send a legal theory since he has a "change of views" with Stallman and started to claim that there is a problem. Moglen has been asked several time to send a legal theory for his reversed view but besides from general unfriendlyness, he did never send _any_ legal explanation that could confirm that there is a problem. We for this reason need to stay with his first statements that have been proved with trustworthy legal theories and that confirm that there is no problem. Other lawyers are also confirming that there is no legal problem with the original software and these lawyers also confirm their claims with useful legal theories. So this seems to be a simple decision between pointless attacks and useful legal theories. BTW: Debian started to claim that there is a problem, so it is the duty of Debian to confirm that there is a problem. They did however never confirm any of their claims. > don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this > juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world > need > cdrkit. The world does not need any dead and buggy software regardless of it's name and regardless of it's initiator. 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] Burning From Command Line
C Anthony Risinger wrote: > in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include > the best tool for the job = cdrtools. > > on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could > cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you > seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why > not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've As mentioned many times before and as you can read on the website The GPL is full of claims that cannot be enforced in court, see: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf This was written by Lawrence Rosen, the legal advisor of the OpenSource initiative (Opensource.org) in 2004, but I did know this already in 2001 when I tried to be the first person on earth to fight _for_ the GPL and against GPL violations in court. It tourned out that this is impossible. Note that Harald Welte definitely does not base his court cases on the GPL but on the German legal vehicle "preliminary injunction" where he forbids to sell produced hardware that needs to be payed to the producer (e.g. in China) but cannot create revenues from selling, based on the preliminary injunction. Any similar case that would solely be based on software would get lost unless the objector has an incapable lawyer. As mentioned before, in 2001 Moglen first spread wrong claims in the public while I was underway suing two GPL violating companies. So Moglen is already known as an unreliable legal sources since a long time before Debian started to attack cdrtools. >From the lesson I learned in 2001 from suing GPL violaters, I learned that it is useless to use a license that tries to enforce many non-helpful restrictions on the software. As a result, the main contributors of the cdrtools project did discuss this and decided to switch to a more liberal license in the near future. We just could not fully agree on the BSD license. Then in December 2004, Sun and I created the CDDL which turned out to be a license that just tries to enforce as many restrictions as can enforced in court and thus seems to be the right compromise between BSD and GPL. As Debian stedted to attack cdrtools in May 2004 and as Debian massively boosted these attacks in late 2005 (including wrong claims about legal problems), I decided to switch towads the CDDL on May 15th 2006. As you see, the license change was a _result_ of the attacks from Debian but definitely not the cause. > been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, > the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like > the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... > this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) I personally know some projects that did go back from GPLv3 because the GPLv3 claims more restrictions than the GPLv2 and you are correct, I personally don't know about a project that moved from another license towards the GPL. 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] Burning From Command Line
Mauro Santos wrote: > > Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. > > > > I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat > > and > > that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. > > Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. > > The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by > publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it > has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without > fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. You hit the point: There is _zero_ prove from Debian for their claims. Even Eben Moglen (in his mail that has been verified to be otherwise based on lies as he e.g. claims that there was a phone call that did never happen) did not give _any_ legal theory for his claims. Guess why... ... And there is a detailed explanation from me, Lawrence Rosen and other people who confirm each statement with valid legal theories. As long as there people that even believe things claimed by Debian to be in the GPL that are not, we seem to have a serious social problem with FUD and trolling. 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] Burning From Command Line
At Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010 19:18 Mauro Santos wrote: > If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then > prove them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the > legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of > wanting people to believe something because you say so. This is not a one direction way because i must not believe the words of debian too.-) Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and which don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world need cdrkit. See you, Attila
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Baho Utot wrote: > On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? >> >> Jörg >> >> > Yes > > Here here ! After all, this is open source ! Tts the *community *that decides what they want to do, not the other way around. If the community decides to use a buggy piece of software, so be it. Besides, (even though what i'm about to say is contradictory to 'the arch way' that uses a rolling release model and delivers the latest stable software) new, up-to-date, latest generation software doesn't necessarily mean its good software. I myself must confess that I didn't even know which package I was using for burning CDs from the command line. But after reading through this thread, I will definetily go reserach the differences compare them (both technical and legal sides) for myself. P.S: I am sorry for adding yet another post to a thread that should just be left alone -- "All musicians are drug addicts, no question about it. The ecstasy we get during a concert is proof enough. yet there is a slight difference between us, the musicians, and the typical 'street-junkie'... Instead of consuming powder, we consume vibrations" Will et/ou Gregory Eric Sanderson Turcot Temlett MacDonnell Forbes et/ou Touffa! :)
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? Jörg Yes
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Xavier Chantry wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> >> at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything >> outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ >> messages twice and the "yay" thread started afterwards. >> > > Sorry to inform you that you did not read enough. right on. > >> seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... >> who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use >> it? doubtful. >> >> this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair >> amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. >> mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i >> did not even know there was a difference between wodim and >> cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his >> software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this >> misinformation. >> > > If you think I had any bias towards Joerg before reading this mailing > list, well, you are wrong. > Any judgments I might have is based on what he posted here. > I don't see why other people should be biased either, Arch ML was > spammed well enough on this topic that any reader can make his own > opinion. if you can't recognize the poor attitudes, them i'm afraid sir that it is yourself who has not read enough. i'm not going to cite anyone specifically (and i wasn't referencing you in particular), but some of the responses by even devs/forum admins are rather pointless and do little more than provide more energy for further banter, on _both_ sides. additionally, i would hardly classify the defense of one's position as "spam". >> if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a >> complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: >> >> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ >> >> would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i >> don't know ANY other distro that includes it. >> >> in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include >> the best tool for the job = cdrtools. >> > > It's not the only issue. What we need is a Arch developer that is : > 1) willing to package cdrtools despite the license doubts > 2) willing to work with Joerg as upstream (see > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html) sorry but that link is a prime example of said pointlessness: "My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating." gee, thanks. i see showers of rainbows and lollipops in the near future. > That possibility was never completely excluded. > But by endlessly trolling on our Mailing List and not showing much > co-operation, Joerg is making more enemies than friends among Arch > community and developers. > IMO he would do himself a big favor by staying quiet. perhaps. but dealing with a conflict like this for nearly a decade is bound to make any weary, disgruntled, and probably somewhat bitter that it happened at all. you do not know what the experience was like or how deep the story runs any more than i do. constantly telling the guy that does know how he should "stay quiet" and accept it, well i'd probably tell you exactly where to stick it if i were him :-) > Since his software is technically superior, and is not completely > unknown, people should recognize that and start using it by > themselves. If a Arch user reports recording troubles with wodim, it's > likely that another Arch user will recommend him to try out cdrecord, > which is documented in Arch wiki and available in AUR. The good > reputation of the software is built by the community, not the words of > wisdom of the software's author. for sure; let's package them both up. dude's probably an alright guy that is just passionate about his creation and his position. hell, make me a dev right now and i package the damn thing today. >> on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could >> cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you >> seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why >> not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've >> been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, >> the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like >> the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... >> this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) >> > > 20 people asked this before you on this very same mailing list. Why do > you think you are so special that he would listen to you ? maybe because i'm not an asshat about it in the process. and because i'm 40% special, and 60% that righteous mineral dolomite baby! people are more responsive when they don't feel threatened; that goes for anyone. > And if you had read this : > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/01
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > > at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything > outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ > messages twice and the "yay" thread started afterwards. > Sorry to inform you that you did not read enough. > seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... > who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use > it? doubtful. > > this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair > amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. > mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i > did not even know there was a difference between wodim and > cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his > software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this > misinformation. > If you think I had any bias towards Joerg before reading this mailing list, well, you are wrong. Any judgments I might have is based on what he posted here. I don't see why other people should be biased either, Arch ML was spammed well enough on this topic that any reader can make his own opinion. > if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a > complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: > > http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ > > would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i > don't know ANY other distro that includes it. > > in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include > the best tool for the job = cdrtools. > It's not the only issue. What we need is a Arch developer that is : 1) willing to package cdrtools despite the license doubts 2) willing to work with Joerg as upstream (see http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html) That possibility was never completely excluded. But by endlessly trolling on our Mailing List and not showing much co-operation, Joerg is making more enemies than friends among Arch community and developers. IMO he would do himself a big favor by staying quiet. Since his software is technically superior, and is not completely unknown, people should recognize that and start using it by themselves. If a Arch user reports recording troubles with wodim, it's likely that another Arch user will recommend him to try out cdrecord, which is documented in Arch wiki and available in AUR. The good reputation of the software is built by the community, not the words of wisdom of the software's author. > on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could > cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you > seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why > not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've > been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, > the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like > the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... > this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) > 20 people asked this before you on this very same mailing list. Why do you think you are so special that he would listen to you ? And if you had read this : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html You would know there is not even a need for a dual license or a license change, just a simple clause : <<< After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL." >>>
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Mauro Santos wrote: > On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> Mauro Santos wrote: >> >>> "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to >>> be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that >>> time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably >> >> Good point! >> >> Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching >> ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). >> >> Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. >> >> Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. >> >> I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and >> that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. > > Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. > > The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by > publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it > has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without > fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. > > On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their > claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review > the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been > itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. > > Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. > This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references > irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. > > This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't > want these rules to apply to you. > > If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then > _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the > legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of > wanting people to believe something because you say so. > > > -- > Mauro Santos at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the "yay" thread started afterwards. seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it? doubtful. this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation. if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i don't know ANY other distro that includes it. in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Mauro Santos wrote: > >> "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to >> be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that >> time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably > > Good point! > > Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching > ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). > > Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. > > Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. > > I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and > that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't want these rules to apply to you. If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of wanting people to believe something because you say so. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 26/05/10 16:59, Joerg Schilling wrote: Mauro Santos wrote: "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Jörg lol, you're obviously a troll...
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Mauro Santos wrote: > "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to > be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that > time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. 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] Burning From Command Line
On 05/26/2010 02:48 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Heiko Baums wrote: > >> You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the >> repos in favor of cdrkit. >> >> You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. > > At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. > Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? Just like you have been told before in the other thread a few months ago, people are just covering their asses, there is a big number of distros using cdrkit so in case of doubt just use what everyone else uses. >> And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch >> developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to >> cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the >> licenses, there is a problem. > > If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer > but please to not follow the slander from Debian. Lawyers are expensive and smaller distros like Arch can't afford to spend money on lawyers because of someone else's quarrel. "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably leads to the same result, which is, keep distributing cdrkit. If you want to change that, concede to what people ask of you. If you had done that already most probably we wouldn't be having this huge déjà vu thread. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 15:48:29 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): > Heiko Baums wrote: > > > You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the > > repos in favor of cdrkit. > > > > You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. > > At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. > Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? I don't claim anything. I just tell you, that you claim that Debian doesn't tell the truth and don't prove this as you have been asked for many times. Just publish at least one of the assessments of the several lawyers you always mention and everything could be well. If they don't want their statements to be publish in a mailing list, just send them privately to the devs and/or package maintainers so that they can read them and form an opinion about them. And there we have one of the annoying discussions. If Debian tells the truth or slenders anyone, is only related to Debian and not to other distributions. So you should discuss this with Debian directly and not on other forums and mailing lists. > If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized > laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. I'm not really interested in it. For me cdrkit is working more or less, even if I believe you, that cdrtools would be technically better. And it's not my job to care about licenses as I'm just a normal user and not a dev. And as a normal user who is not concerned in these licensing stuff, I'm pretty annoyed about this permanently repeating endless and useless discussion. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? No. -- Guilherme M. Nogueira "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Heiko Baums wrote: > You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the > repos in favor of cdrkit. > > You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion? > And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch > developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to > cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the > licenses, there is a problem. If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. 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] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 14:42:57 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): > The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing > nonsense FUD spread by Debian. > > Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the > broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools > (Suse). > > I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" > for a non-existent problem. Because you are always discussing and arguing this. You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit. You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues. You have been asked many times to prove your opinion and your claims, and to publish at least one assessment of these lawyers, which shall exist as you always claim. You have never done this. Instead you blame one of the lawyers, who is cited by the distributors. And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the licenses, there is a problem. And as I said before, it's really annoying. Either remove the doubts as you are asked for, sue the cdrkit developers, if you think, they violate your licenses by this fork, or accept the situation as it is. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Jan de Groot wrote: > 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. > This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to > gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license > to ordinary GPL in section 3. You can't do this as such a change would be unrevocable and effective for the whole distro. There are other users of the LGPL libs that need them to be under LGPL. Conclusion: Not a useful solution. 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] Burning From Command Line
Allan McRae wrote: > > For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has > > been > > verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to > > Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other > > lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( > > > > So you used him as an example of someone who supported you conclusions > when they agreed with yours, but when his opinion conflicts with yours > he becomes someone who can not be trusted... I explained to you that I know since 2001 that he is not trustworthy. His recent actions just confirm this old knowledge. We have the lawyers from Sun legal, we have my German lawyers and we have Lawrence Rosen (the legal advisor of the OpenSOurce Initiatice OpenSource.org) that all confirm my statements. It is obvious to distrust a single person like Moglen that did stuck out with wrong claims long time before in special as he first confirmed to me in private that there is no problem with cdrtools. 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 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] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Heiko Baums wrote: > > > > Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should > > > have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander > > > campaign against an OpenSource project. > > > > > > Jörg > > > > Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a > > licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it > > under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless > > instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? > > > > It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the > > licensing. > > The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD > spread by Debian. > > Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the > broken > and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). > > I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a > non-existent problem. > > 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/ > * > * > *Korean Guide: Korean start -> Trucha bug -> Korean extra -> The basics -> > Update* > *Other Languages: Dutch* > * > * > *Latest update: April 24th 2010 -- Images have not been made by us, please > don't credit us for them!* > > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > How does any of this relate to the initial thread question whatsoever? Turning a simple question about burning an iso from CLI into an ongoing debate that was just on the Arch ML not a few months ago is rather annoying. I am sure I am not the only one that would like to see this debate taken elsewhere, and please let the thread die.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Heiko Baums wrote: > > Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should > > have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander > > campaign against an OpenSource project. > > > > Jörg > > Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a > licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it > under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless > instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? > > It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the > licensing. The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD spread by Debian. Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse). I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a non-existent problem. 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] Burning From Command Line
On 26/05/10 22:21, Joerg Schilling wrote: Xavier Chantry wrote: Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html Just don't believe claims from Moglen that have been proven to be wrong. I never had a phone call with Moglen and the rest of his claims is wrong too. I know Moglen as a person who frequently spreads wrong claims to the public :-( and I know him this way since 2001 when I was the first person who did ever try to sue companies that violate the GPL. This is why I warned Mark Shuttleworth about Moglen before he asked him. For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( So you used him as an example of someone who supported you conclusions when they agreed with yours, but when his opinion conflicts with yours he becomes someone who can not be trusted... Very convenient!
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Jan de Groot wrote: > > > > Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that > > > dropped libcdio > > > because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? > > > > Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't > > want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. > > In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions > > applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. > > You are obviously not correct, check Solaris. > > libcdio has two legal problems: > > 1)It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. > Most people believe that this is not permitted. > > 2)libcdio is based on code that is available under > > - GPLv2 _only_ > > - CDDL > > The related code was never made available under a different > license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code > is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did > however never ask the real author of the related code for > permission to do this license change and he now as a result > of his violations would definitely not get this permission. > > > Please stop spreading this nonsense. > > It is you who spreads nonsense :-( > > Please stop this! 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. 2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference about that. If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either. As for your claims, there's still an open question for you: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.html
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Am Wed, 26 May 2010 13:35:55 +0200 schrieb joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling): > Well, the license of the original software has been verified by Sun > lawyers. People who are interested in more information may ask e.g. > Simon Phipps and everybody can easily check that Solaris ships with > halfway recent original software. I am sure that Solaris will switch > soon to cdrtools-3.0 once it has been published next week. > > Just to make clear how picky license violations are handled with > Solaris, check that "libcdio" has been removed from Solaris > distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio > that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do > you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the > obvious licence violations in libcdio? > > Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should > have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander > campaign against an OpenSource project. > > Jörg Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing. If a distributor, if many distributors tell you that they have a problem with your licensing, and you want them to ship your package instead of cdrkit, then change your license so that every doubt is removed. Or pay a lawyer, who will publish his assessment, to prove that there are no legal issues with your licenses. Otherwise keep your licenses, accept that the distributors don't ship your cdrtools in their official repositories and stop arguing and discussing. It's just up to you, not to any distributors or lawyers. It's really annoying, to always read the same. I doubt, btw., that arguing persistently with the distributors and package maintainers will win them over and encourage them to include your software to their official repositories. If you have a problem with Debian and/or the cdrkit developers, discuss it with them directly, but not on mailing lists or forums which are not related to both. Or go to court and sue them. Then you will get the proof, which licensing model and which software fork is legal and which is not. And this proof will automatically be made public. As I said before, it's just up to you. It's your software, you want it to be included into the distributions' official repositories. So build and license it in a way, that the distributors and package maintainers don't have any doubt, or proof - not claim - them publicly that there are no legal issues with your licenses. And, btw., there is a cdrtools package in AUR. So every Arch user who wants to use it, can easily build and install it. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
Jan de Groot wrote: > > Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that > > dropped libcdio > > because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? > > Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't > want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. > In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions > applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. You are obviously not correct, check Solaris. libcdio has two legal problems: 1) It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. Most people believe that this is not permitted. 2) libcdio is based on code that is available under - GPLv2 _only_ - CDDL The related code was never made available under a different license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did however never ask the real author of the related code for permission to do this license change and he now as a result of his violations would definitely not get this permission. > Please stop spreading this nonsense. It is you who spreads nonsense :-( Please stop this! 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] Burning From Command Line
Xavier Chantry wrote: > Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html > which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html Just don't believe claims from Moglen that have been proven to be wrong. I never had a phone call with Moglen and the rest of his claims is wrong too. I know Moglen as a person who frequently spreads wrong claims to the public :-( and I know him this way since 2001 when I was the first person who did ever try to sue companies that violate the GPL. This is why I warned Mark Shuttleworth about Moglen before he asked him. For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-( 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] Burning From Command Line
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 13:35 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > ust to make clear how picky license violations are handled with > Solaris, check > that "libcdio" has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 > because of > the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers > in the > Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that > dropped libcdio > because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
"Rasmus Steinke" wrote: > The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of > cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the > legal issues. > Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure > claim. Well, the license of the original software has been verified by Sun lawyers. People who are interested in more information may ask e.g. Simon Phipps and everybody can easily check that Solaris ships with halfway recent original software. I am sure that Solaris will switch soon to cdrtools-3.0 once it has been published next week. Just to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that "libcdio" has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project. 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] Burning From Command Line
Daenyth Blank wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > > > > What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially > > declared by the developers. > Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased... I am also the main author and the Copyright holder of the dead fork. The problem with the so called fork is that some people did take a very old version of cdrtools, added bugs and then stopped working on it. There was nothing but typo-corrections since May 6th 2007 in the fork. The original cdrtools project did however introduce more code and more features (since those people copied the old version) than during it's whole life before. Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code? 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] Burning From Command Line
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rasmus Steinke wrote: > > Jörg has a point. While of course being biased about his pet cdrtools, > cdrkit is not on par with cdrtools in any way. > Those updates you mention more or less only consist of small fixes, no > progess at all in that package. > > The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of > cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the > legal issues. > Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure > claim. > Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html > This doesnt change the fact that cdrtools is clearly superior to cdrkit. > (Just check arch's bugtracker) > > Rasi > If this wasn't the case, the situation wouldn't suck as much. Everyone would just use cdrkit without second thoughts. But when a project is forked by external (non-involved) people simply for fixing the license rather than fixing real technical problems, I wouldn't expect great progress being made. Anyway let's stop talking about all this non-sense BS. I am very happy with how the wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning) presents things by staying very practical. Install packaged cdrkit, and if it doesn't work for you, install cdrtools from AUR.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:47:18 +0200, Isaac Dupree wrote: On 05/21/10 04:29, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see "Burning an iso image") The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...). It's last updated in October 2009, and used in many distros... Wikipedia contains info and history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit -Isaac Jörg has a point. While of course being biased about his pet cdrtools, cdrkit is not on par with cdrtools in any way. Those updates you mention more or less only consist of small fixes, no progess at all in that package. The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the legal issues. Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure claim. This doesnt change the fact that cdrtools is clearly superior to cdrkit. (Just check arch's bugtracker) Rasi
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
2010/5/23 Ng Oon-Ee : > On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 23:07 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote: >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: >> > >> > What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially >> > declared by the developers. >> Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased... > > Well, on the flip-side he wrote the software, so his word can be > considered the 'official declaration'. > > This was discussed on this ML a couple of months back, just search > Joerg's name as he was (obviously) one of the main contributors to that > conversation. > > Well.. the official declaration for cdrecord, not for wodim. If you want to hear the wodim side, it happens there : http://www.cdrkit.org/
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 23:07 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > > > > What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially > > declared by the developers. > Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased... Well, on the flip-side he wrote the software, so his word can be considered the 'official declaration'. This was discussed on this ML a couple of months back, just search Joerg's name as he was (obviously) one of the main contributors to that conversation.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > > What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially > declared by the developers. Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased...
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/23/2010 01:32 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: On 22-05-2010 01:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote: In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same. My fault not mentioning the other project. Armando cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name) Excuse me, I meant cdrtools. In any case, it was not correct: cdrecord is not the same as wodim. wodim is a dead and buggy fork from a 5 year old cdrecord version. The old and new name for the maintained original software is cdrecord. Jörg What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially declared by the developers. -- Nilesh Govindarajan (निलेश गोविंदराजन) Twitter: nileshgr Facebook: nilesh.gr Website: www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
"Armando M. Baratti" wrote: > On 22-05-2010 01:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > > On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote: > >>> > >> In fact I *use* cdrecord. > >> I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are > >> (at most) the same. > >> > >> My fault not mentioning the other project. > >> > >> > >> Armando > > > > cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name) > > > > Excuse me, I meant cdrtools. In any case, it was not correct: cdrecord is not the same as wodim. wodim is a dead and buggy fork from a 5 year old cdrecord version. The old and new name for the maintained original software is cdrecord. 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] Burning From Command Line
On 22-05-2010 01:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote: In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same. My fault not mentioning the other project. Armando cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name) Excuse me, I meant cdrtools. Armando
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote: On 21-05-2010 05:29, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see "Burning an iso image") The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...). Better use the original software that is maintained and without known bugs. ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ http://cdrecord.berlios.de/ See also the man pages at: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html Jörg In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same. My fault not mentioning the other project. Armando cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name) -- Nilesh Govindarajan (निलेश गोविंदराजन) Twitter: nileshgr Facebook: nilesh.gr Website: www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/21/10 04:29, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see "Burning an iso image") The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...). It's last updated in October 2009, and used in many distros... Wikipedia contains info and history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit -Isaac
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 21-05-2010 05:29, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see "Burning an iso image") The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...). Better use the original software that is maintained and without known bugs. ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ http://cdrecord.berlios.de/ See also the man pages at: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html Jörg In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same. My fault not mentioning the other project. Armando
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
-Original Message- > Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:29:00 +0200 > Subject: Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line > From: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) > To: arch-general@archlinux.org > "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: > > > Arch Linux Wiki: > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning > > > > > > (see "Burning an iso image") > > The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use > software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs > (wodim, genisoimage, ...). > > Better use the original software that is maintained and without known > bugs. > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ > > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/ > > See also the man pages at: > > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html > > 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 > The use of cdrtools is explicitely encouraged on that page, if problems with cdrkit occur. Scroll down a bit.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
"Armando M. Baratti" wrote: > Arch Linux Wiki: > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning > > (see "Burning an iso image") The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...). Better use the original software that is maintained and without known bugs. ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ http://cdrecord.berlios.de/ See also the man pages at: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html 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] Burning From Command Line
On 5/20/10, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > On 05/20/2010 10:00 PM, Dave Morgan wrote: >> >> >> On 20 May 2010, at 17:26, Carlos Mennens wrote: >> >> How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I >> downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via >> CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or >> Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via >> CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so? >> >> Wiki? I'm sure there must be something in there. > > Use wodim -dao > -dao is for instructing wodim that is not a multisession disk otherwise > it may not boot. > Also refer to this - > http://www.itech7.com/Linux/Writing-CDs-and-DVDs-on-the-command-line Just for the non official package, :-) There's cdrtools from AUR with cdrecord and mkisofs... -- Javier.
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 05/20/2010 10:00 PM, Dave Morgan wrote: On 20 May 2010, at 17:26, Carlos Mennens wrote: How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so? Wiki? I'm sure there must be something in there. Use wodim -dao -dao is for instructing wodim that is not a multisession disk otherwise it may not boot. Also refer to this - http://www.itech7.com/Linux/Writing-CDs-and-DVDs-on-the-command-line -- Nilesh Govindarajan (निलेश गोविंदराजन) Twitter: nileshgr Facebook: nilesh.gr Website: www.itech7.com
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 20-05-2010 13:26, Carlos Mennens wrote: How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so? Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning (see "Burning an iso image") Armando
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Dave Morgan wrote: > Wiki? I'm sure there must be something in there. I just got back from vacation. Don't know why I didn't think about the Wiki. Duh... http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning
Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line
On 20 May 2010, at 17:26, Carlos Mennens wrote: How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so? Wiki? I'm sure there must be something in there.
[arch-general] Burning From Command Line
How do I create a bootable install disk from an .ISO image I downloaded from the Arch site? I would like to know how to do this via CLI only rather than using a front end GUI like Gnome Baker, K3B, or Brasero. Does anyone know the command to burn the image to disk via CLI and what packages I must have in order to do so?
