Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. > Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. > Have I forgotten someone? You had the chance to ask me for the permission to remove this code. Instead, you decided to ignore the Copyright and removed Copyright related code without permission. You are not in the situation that allows you to discuss this topic, you simply don't have the right to remove Copyright notes. If you don't like to continue your Copyright violation, you need to undo this deletion. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original > > version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) > > command. > > Until this bug, I had no clue about that what(1) existed. It does also only > exist on a very few unix-derivatives. (some commercial ones and some of the > bsd's) It is not my fault if you don't know enough about the POSIX standard. What is present on every commercial UNIX system and it is present on OpenSolaris. And if you did look a bit around you did find this: http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man1/what.1.html Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Joerg Schilling] > > I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the > > source before and after the change to see the difference. > > > > If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent > > changes. it would be easy to understand what happened. > > We have removed a lot of _duplicate_ copyright notices from source > files, as a cleanup. We have not removed copyright information from > source files; it is still there, just not repeated 2 or 3 times per > file, as it was in some cases before. This is wrong: You did remove _code_ that is intended to keep Copyright/version information in binaries. The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. I am not aware of a single case in the past 25 years where someone did try to remove this kind of information. > Users typically look for copyright notices in documentation and other > materials that come with a package. (I note that the manpage we got Do not reason from your behavior on others. > And speaking of my local Linux system, let me check for copyright > notices in SCCS strings. The only user binaries aside from yours that > embed copyright notices in that way are: iputils ping, netkit telnet, > tcsh, aumix, vixie cron, gprof, lsof, util-linux pg, xdaliclock, and > the ncftp suite. That is 11 packages (counting yours) out of over 1200 > installed packages -- about 1%. By number of binaries it's on the > order of 25 out of 2600 -- again, 1%. Noce to see that wou admit that nobody tries to remove this information in case it is present! Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did already explain recisely what the problem is. > > I've read the logs, and I still have no idea what you're talking > about. > > > What information do you need? > > Let me spell it out the process even more clearly: > > 1) Send mail explaining precisely what the problem is. I already did this. > 2) If the maintainer disagrees, appeal to the tech ctte to override >the maintainer. The maintainer does not seem to be interested in the problem. > If you believe you've done #1 then your only recourse is #2. At no > point does this involve reopening bugs. Are you going to tell me that Debian has no way to deal with malicious or unwilling maintainers? Note that this is the only reason for the cdrtools dispute from Debian. > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html for a > recent post "ex cathedra." The current problem is related to this piece of text from you: Maintainers, of course, should not capriciously close bugs or tag or block them nonsensically, and should attempt to explain why they are closing bugs or altering states wherever possible, but regardless of whatever inequities the maintainer has committed, using the control interface to argue with them will only result in your exclusion from it. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in "cdrkit"
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Stop abusing the Debian Bug tracking system! > > First and foremost, the maintainer(s) of a Debian Package are wholy > responsible for determining the state of bugs assigned to their > packages in the BTS unless overridden by the tech-ctte. If they did act in a responsible way, they would not remove copyright information and they would definitely not "close" a bug that has not been dealt with yet. Note that in former times, when claims against my software have been in the BTS that have been proven to be incorrect, the bug was still not closed. So it seems that some people at Debian abuse the BTS to act against certain people. > Continuing to reopen bugs after they have been closed by the relevant > maintainer will result in an exclusion from utilizing the BTS control > interface. So please exclude Joerg Jaspert from the BTS who did close the bug many times although he knows that there are unhandled issues. > If you believe the bug is being closed in error, then you should > respond to the bug explaining precisely why there's a bug and what > should be done to fix it, *without* reopening the bug. If you are > unable to convince the maintainer(s) then your only recourse is to > attempt to convince the tech-ctte to override the maintainer(s). I did already explain recisely what the problem is. What information do you need? > As a final note, the Debian BTS is for reporting issues in Debian > packages, not unpackaged or versions not distributed by Debian. Those > issues should be brought up with the people responsible for the > packages using whatever mechanism they utilize, not the BTS. This looks like a cheap excuse. Please note that we are talking about a Copyright violation on svn.debian.org Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#401556: DVD Burn Fails with strange behavior
If you are having problems with DVD writing, I recommend to upgrade to a programt hat supports DVD writing: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#397478: sdd: FTBFS: /bin/sh: incs/x86_64-linux-cc/Inull: No such file or directory
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Please read the DFSG, if you believe that you cannot do this, then the > > License > > that might prevent it is not a free license acording to DFSG. > > this is not the place to discuss this again. cdrtools are purged from > Debian, you can't influence the decission anymore. > please note that i kindly requested a new sdd release with updated > build-system. you can relicense the whole thing to CDDL as you did with > sfind, we have no problem with that. I did try to tell you where you are wrong It was not my decision to start a discusion based on incorrect claims, but it is ibvious that I need to correct them. Maybe this helps: The GPL was called non-free by the OSI (opensource.org) until a few years just exactly because ot this missinterpreting of the GPL. Then the FSF did aproach OSI and verified that the GPL definitely does not have the requirements to put everything under GPL. It is not my fault that a few people at Debian did not yet get this. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#397478: sdd: FTBFS: /bin/sh: incs/x86_64-linux-cc/Inull: No such file or directory
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > You (yourself) did take the project independend make code from a different > > project's tarball. Maybe, you should just educate those people inside > > Debian who > > did not understand DFSG § 9. > > for a patch, there is nothing problematic with it. but including it into > another project with another, incompatible license, isn't ok. Please read the DFSG, if you believe that you cannot do this, then the License that might prevent it is not a free license acording to DFSG. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#397478: sdd: FTBFS: /bin/sh: incs/x86_64-linux-cc/Inull: No such file or directory
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > The program 'sdd' and "The Schily Makefile system" are independent projects > > (GPL speech: "works"). As the GPL is an OSI aproved license, it must not > > contaminate other projects like "The Schily Makefile system", so there is > > no > > problem with taking a recent makefilesystem and combine it with an old sdd. > > As you know, this is not possible in Debian. Why? Because some strange people decided to ignore Debian rules? You (yourself) did take the project independend make code from a different project's tarball. Maybe, you should just educate those people inside Debian who did not understand DFSG § 9. > > Note that your problem would not be present if you did use "smake" to > > compile > > as smake includes "auto make" features that allow compilation on previously > > unknown platforms. > > It seems, that we'd like to get rid of smake, hence I did intentionally > not using it. The problem with GNU make is that it is de-facto unmaintained. A bug that I reported in 1999 and that has been accepted as very important bug still has not been fixed in GNU make! This is why I cannot rely on GNU make and need a working and highly portable make program. This is smake. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#397478: sdd: FTBFS: /bin/sh: incs/x86_64-linux-cc/Inull: No such file or directory
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the attached patch adds the needed rules to build succesfully on amd64. > > However, I took it from sfind which ships a more updated rules-set. > Unfortunately, it is licensed under CDDL only, and sdd is GPL only, > hence the patch is incompatible. Don't be afraid: The program 'sdd' and "The Schily Makefile system" are independent projects (GPL speech: "works"). As the GPL is an OSI aproved license, it must not contaminate other projects like "The Schily Makefile system", so there is no problem with taking a recent makefilesystem and combine it with an old sdd. Note that your problem would not be present if you did use "smake" to compile as smake includes "auto make" features that allow compilation on previously unknown platforms. > Joerg, could you please release an updated version of sdd (if GPL or > CDDL doesn't matter)? I am currently worting in a fix for a star bug that has a higher priority. I'll see what I can do. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: Debian bug #374685: cdrecord and suid privs
Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I understand what you are saying: > > The problem is that changes in the Linux interface force you to ask > Linux users to install the program setuid in order to be sure to test > all the possible difficulties that may arise when writing a CD/DVD. > > As a result of your work on this program, CD/DVD writing has become > dependable on a huge number of different platforms and drives. You do > not want this achievement to be watered down in any way. > > So, what I would like is that the Debian version of "cdrecord" be > (re)patched minimally so that it: > > (a) Produces behaviour essentially identical to your upstream version > in case the program is installed suid or is run as root. > > (b) *Can* be installed and run non-setuid root---for the "paranoid" amongst > us. Such system administrators should be WARNED that they *may* produce > "coasters" and that the better way is to install the program as > you have suggested. This is not a solution do you believe that you don't need door in the elevator shaft because sometimes when you step in, there is an elevator at your storey? If you like to make cdrecord work, you _need_ to install it suid root or to make it 0700 owned by root, so only root may call it. > I believe such a patch is possible and is essentially available in > the BTS. I also understand that you might consider (b) to be a watering > down of your work and thus unacceptable to you. I did not see any patch that makes sense, only some patches that try to hide the problems and thus create more problems than already present. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: Debian bug #374685: cdrecord and suid privs
Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is my understanding of the situation of cdrecord with Linux 2.6.x. > Please correct me if I am wrong. > >"cdrecord" will (perhaps with minor modifications) be able to write >CD's without root privileges for a user with access to rw the relevant >drive. However this will lead to greater chances of errors in the >CD's written. I am not sure if I understand you the right way, but the facts are: - On previous Linux versions, it was possible to make cdrecord work without root-privs in case you did compromize security on that system and in case you did not care about coasters or write quality. - With Linux 2.6.x, it is impossible to run cdrecord without root provs. Do not believe single persons who claim otherwise as Linux-2.6.x filters away random SCSI commands when cdrecord does not have root-privs and as cdrecord heavily depends on the fact that the SCSI protocol depends on SCSI commands that "fail" because they are not supported by the actual drive in order to correctly support the features of the actual drive. It is definitely impossible to support "correct" DVD writing without having root-privs. - Recent cdrecord versions (see ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha) include workarounds for the incompatible interface changes on recent Linux versions and allow you to use cdrecord in case it has been installed suid-root. - The "latest" cdrecord version on Debian is definitely broken. My suggestion is: - get a recent copy of the original cdrtools source from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha and compile it. - Install the cdrecord/cdda2wav/readcd binaries suid root. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You started this thread and you have been unable to prove your claims. > I ask you to either prove your claims or to close the bugs #350739 & #350739 > within one week. Thank you for admitting that your previsous claims are wrong. Not that you did admit that your claims have been pointless, I urge you to close the bugs #350739 & #350739 within 2 days. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
** You should start to learn about the nettiquette and not shorten the Cc: list! Otherwise people will believe that you have something to hide ** Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > you did not reply to my last mail, so it is obvious that you have no > > arguments to prove the claim that cdrtools has license problems or > > may be undistributable by Debian. > > I have not responded because they do not raise any issues which are of > any interest to me, nor do they adequately address the crux of the > argument as presented in the two paragraphs in > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. [1] I did reply to you and tell you why your claims are wrong. You are continuously completely missinterpreting the GPL: You are mixing different parts of the GPL and incorrectly claim that a restriction that applies to a specific part of the GPL also applies to other parts of the GPL. This is obviously wrong! Only restrictrions that are explicitly mentioned in a specific paragraph are applicable to this specific paragraph... > I do not have copious amounts of time to spend discussing > oversimplificiations of the licenses with you; if you can distill your > arguments into a short, well formulated message that precisely > explains why the clauses I have identified do not conflict with > appropriate verbatim inclusions of the clauses and why you interpret > them that way, and citations of case law,[1] I will respond. YOU did start this thread and you forced me to spend a lot of time with it. YOU have been unable to prove any of you claims so far. YOU need to either continue this thread and prove your claims or admit that your claims are wrong. If you do not prove your claims, we need to asume that you admit that your claims are not true. You seem to completely missunderstand this case: It is not me who need to prove that there is no problem but YOU need to prove that there _is_ a problem. > 2: This means court cases which illustrate the point that you're > trying to prove, preferably in the US, not websites that claim German > law actually applies to the US without case law indicating the precise > depth thereof. I told you more than once that German law applies to cdrtools. US courts are obviouisly not relevent. But again: this is irrelevent. You started this thread and you have been unable to prove your claims. I ask you to either prove your claims or to close the bugs #350739 & #350739 within one week. Best regards Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You again make the wrong conclusions and I get the impression that > you need to read the GPL more thoroughly in order to understand the way > I interpret it. > > The main missunderstanding seems to be caused by reading GOL §2 b) too > quickly. this is why I try to explain it to you in detail below. Hi Don, you did not reply to my last mail, so it is obvious that you have no arguments to prove the claim that cdrtools has license problems or may be undistributable by Debian. As you did start the current discussion, I believe that you should draw the conclusions and close the Debian bugs 350739 and 377109 as soon as possible. Best regards Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL > > > do not require contradictory conditions... > > > > You must give the licensee a copy of GPL: > > > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > > Program), > > the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor > > to > > copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and > > conditions. > > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > > the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance > > by third parties to this License. Let me add some notes to avoid further confusion and missunderstandings: - You cannot take arbritary words from one part of a license and combine them with arbitrary words from other parts of the license to create the license you like to read. - You need to carefully read a license exactly the same way it has been written, sentence by sentence, word by word. - Any case not mentioned explicitly in the license is either covered by more permissive parts of the license or (if not applicable) by the law - in our case the German "Urheberrecht". - The GPL §1 is a permissive clause that nearly catches all conditions. > > > > CDDL 1.0 says: > > > > > > > > 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You > > > > distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different > > > > license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ > > > > from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer > > > > or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and > > > > every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or > > > > such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer. A similar clause (although less clearly written) is in the Preamble of the GPL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
First an important note: you seem to like to manipulate things as you intentionally shorten the Cc: list. Please don't do this anymore, it is very bad practice George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL > > do not require contradictory conditions... > > You must give the licensee a copy of GPL: > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), > the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to > copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance > by third parties to this License. You make the same mistake as many other people do This part of the GPL is not related to binary distributions, otherwise it would mention binary distribution. Binary distribution is only mentioned in §3 of the GPL. As I pointed out previously, the CDDL does not enforce any additional restriction on the GPLd source code. > But CDDL imposes further restrictions which are incompatible with GPL. This is wrong, see above. > You are changing your positions way too fast. In a previous message you said: > > Both, the CDDL and the GPL are _source_ licenses. > You are wrong here too I do not change my position but I present a clear line of arguments. On the other side, I am constantly whiping out wrong claims and I am treatened with hourly changing strange positions from people in this list. > Now you write: "There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL > and the GPL do not require contradictory conditions..." Which is correct and you did not prove the converse. > Your only sane choice is to dual license the whole projects of yours under > CDDL and GPL. Thus licensees either accept the CDDL and ignore GPL, or accept > GPL and ignore CDDL for both the source code and executables. This is what people like you like, but fortunately this is not needed. > > > CDDL 1.0 says: > > > > > > 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions. > > > > ... > > > > > the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You > > > distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different > > > license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ > > > from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer > > > or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and > > > every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or > > > such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer. > > > > > > > > > So someone must decide the license of the distribution of the Covered > > > Software in Executable form. Also this sort of indemnification is insane, > > > but that is perfectly clear. > > > > > > > > > I don't think Debian can fulfil the requirements of this License (CDDL > > > 1.0) because of indemnification mentioned above (at least) for the > > > Executable form of the Covered Software (1.4. Executable means the > > > Covered Software in any form other than Source Code.) > > > > You have been very unclear with your text, so I may only comment the part > > where you have been unambiguous. > > You imply that CDDL is unclear and ambiguous (since my text was being parts > quoted from the CDDL and I think it has very clear wording. Wrong again and I suspect that you opnly like to deflect people from the main problem. > > If Debian is in fear of the last two sentences from CDDL §3.5, then I see > > only one possible reason: > > > > Debian is planning to distribute the binary in a way that causes harm to > > the original developer or contributors. > > It boils down to how this hypothetical "harm" would be claimed and > interpreted > in your jurisdiction after user accepts your CDDL choice-of-venue-patched > license. That's it is not acceptable for me as an end user. This is complete nonsense! > > This gives a deep look inside Debian. > > Fix your baseless squint looking then. You seem to have very strange ideas. The CDDL §3.5 does nothing in the last two sentences but to inform possible distributors of binaries about the lawful rights of the author. It requires a redistributor to accept these lawful rights in advance to a distribution. This makes it easier for the author to defend against evil-minded distributors. Unless you _are_ such a evil-minded distributor, you have nothing to frear from this clause Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary > (Executable Versions) form! There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL do not require contradictory conditions... > CDDL 1.0 says: > > 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions. ... > the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You > distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different license, > You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this > License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or > Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every > Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such > Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer. > > > So someone must decide the license of the distribution of the Covered > Software > in Executable form. Also this sort of indemnification is insane, but that is > perfectly clear. > I don't think Debian can fulfil the requirements of this License (CDDL 1.0) > because of indemnification mentioned above (at least) for the Executable form > of the Covered Software (1.4. Executable means the Covered Software in any > form other than Source Code.) You have been very unclear with your text, so I may only comment the part where you have been unambiguous. If Debian is in fear of the last two sentences from CDDL §3.5, then I see only one possible reason: Debian is planning to distribute the binary in a way that causes harm to the original developer or contributors. This gives a deep look inside Debian. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
People who cut off ompirtant people from the list of mail recipients cannot be taken for serious. You are obvuiously not interested in a solution but in lighting a fire :-( Steve Langasek wrote: >To my knowledge, Eben Moglen's *beliefs* on how the GPLv2 should be >interpreted are not a binding legal precedent in any jurisdiction; nor is >this post hoc interpretation binding on any copyright holders other than the >FSF. It may not even be binding on the FSF itself. What is your intention for this writing? >Regardless, Joerg Schilling's amply demonstrated animosity towards the >maintainers of the Debian cdrecord package has been such that I no longer You seem to completely missunderstand the background. One specific Debian maintainer (Edurard Bloch) is completely uninformed and arrogant. He does cause harm to the Debian project the way he acts. His arrogance is so big that he even claims that he knows better how cdrecord works than me the author. He fails to inform himself about the way cdrecord works and repeatedly writes nonsense to Debian users. >believe the text of the licenses is the principal issue before us. Anyone >so happy to threaten Debian developers with defamation lawsuits is not what You should not believe beople like Eduard Bloch who is a convinced lier in many cases. >I consider a good-faith contributor to the Free Software community, and I >think it's unwise for Debian to distribute software of such provenance >regardless of license terms. The power of a license lies in it's written down terms and not in what someone think's it says, or in their personal opinion or point of views. To put things right: My only interest with Mr. Bloch is to put his discussion on facts and terms of the GPL and not on his personal opinion and thoughts. He bends information until it fit's his opinion and personal point of view, leaving the intended message far behind. Not to speak about personal offenses he often puts in between his words. I told him twice that I do not threaten him, but he either did not read my mails completly or bended them to his personal comfort. He accused me of violating the GPL. When I asked him to cite the paragraphs of the GPL that he claims to be violated, he in return send his personal opinions. After repeatedly reasking him for facts and cites of paragraphs he claims I violate, he found out that there is no evidence on his claims. So I asked him to close the bug but still keep it readable for public interest. And that is where we are right now: He now says that there is no GPL violation that he can claim, but he will leave the bug open for no reason. Right now the bug has been closed and moved out of public sight. It looks to me as if Mr. Bloch holds a grudge against me, but that does not belong in the Debian bugtracking system. It is a misuse of that platform. Wasn't the GPL invented as a safeguard for users of software and not as an instrument for softwareusers against the authors and to waste the time of those authors keeping alive the idea of publicly available software by writing it and putting it in the public on base of free licenses? If users are misusing the GPL as an instrument against programers, why should a programmer then put it's software under such a license. This kind of misuse has the power of underminig and destroying the system of free software. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
You again make the wrong conclusions and I get the impression that you need to read the GPL more thoroughly in order to understand the way I interpret it. The main missunderstanding seems to be caused by reading GOL §2 b) too quickly. this is why I try to explain it to you in detail below. /*--*/ The main weapon of a lawyer or person who works on contracts is the word. If you like to play in that league, you need to be able to deal with that weapon! In other words, you need to read the GPL carefully and thoroughly many times until you understand every corner of the text. Sometimes I get the impressuion that native English speakers don't do that because they believe that they understand what they read in the first attempt. /*--*/ Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The CDDL definitely does not have any requirements on "other" code > > as it is a clearly file based license. For this rerason, your > > statements (below) on the CDDL are wrong. > > Neither license has anything to do with files. The licenses work the > same regardless of whether you have a single file with sections under > multiple licenses or multiple files each under a single license. You need to read the licenses. The CDDL _explicitly_ mentiones the fact that it is file based. Regarding the GPL: If you don't think about the possibility of using separate files, you obviously missunderstand the possibilities that GPL §2 b) gives you. > > Other claims often made about the GPL when talking about the GPL > > cannot be found in the original GPL text, viloate the law and thus > > are void. > > Violate which law(s)? Realize of course, that we're talking about > distribution in multiple countries here, of which Germany is just one. Cdrtools is a work that is covered by German "Urheberrecht" http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html If you don't read and understand it, you are probably the wrong person to discuss this issue. You need e.g. definitely read this: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNG003601377 Since 1993, even US judges need to follow these rules or they are acting illegally. > > The GPL includes no text that is related to GPL projects that > > include/use non-GPLd code. As the GPL in general permits to use the > > code, this is a permitted use. > > The direction is irrelevant. It's just as valid to say that you've > taken the "Schilly makefile" project (CDDLed) and added to it GPLed > code. If what you're saying where actually the case, it would make the > GPL meaningless. Of yourse, the direction is relevent! Your statement about the Schily makefilesystem does not apply at all because the GPL requires to include build scripts but does not mention a specific license. The fact that you believe this may be relevent, verifies that you need to re-read the GPL until you understand that you cannot mix claims from unrelated sentences in the license with claims from other sentences. GPL §2b) b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Some hints for understanding this text: - The Schily makefilesystem is a separate work and not part of the work cdrecord. The Schily makefilesystem does not appear in the resulting binaries and it is possible to compile everything manually without using the Schily makefilesystem. - The term "contains" _definitely_ describes a _direction_ - If you like to understand the text above, you need to understand the term "derived". The fact that mkisofs _uses_ libscg, definitely does not make libscg software that is "derived" from mkisofs. If at all, is just the other way round: mkisofs is a program "derived" from libscg. If you still believe that _the_ _way_ _I_ _combine_ CDDL and GPL is not allowed, you would need to write a very detailled description with quotes in order to proof your claims. In case you did not get it correctly. I am not saying that _every_ combination of CDDL and GPL code is legal, but it is obvious that the combination I am using is legal. > > Note that you simply cannot create a license that tries to enforce > > conditions on other people's code because this would be illegal. > > You missunderstand what the GPL (and to a lesser extent the CDDL) > does. It doesn't *force* you to satisfy the conditions; it *prohibits* > you from distributing the GPLed code when you cannot. You are missunderstanding the GPL and the CDDL in many ways. Cdrtools word by word follow the rules in both licenses! You of course need to read both licenses word by word in order to understand wh
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg position is clear: > > """It may be the main point that people fear that compiling cdrtools > creates unredistibutable binaries. I see no reason why binaries may > be unredistibutable as I don't see any contradictory requirements > from CDDL/GPL. Both licenses are source licenses and require to make the > source available in case a binary is distributed. This is no > contradiction but just the same requirement.""" > > I would like to hear FSF position on this matter and somehow I have a > feeling their interpretation of GPL license is different from what is > claimed here. Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the Free Software > Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be > interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Thank you Erast for pointing this out. The main problem that prevents people to understand the GPL correctly, is that there are too many wrong interpretations in the net and even the FAQ from the FSF is not 100% correct. The main weapon of a lawyer or person who works on contracts is the word. If you like to play in that league, you need to be able to deal with that weapon! In other words, you need to read the GPL carefully and thoroughly many times until you understand every corner of the text. Sometimes I get the impressuion that native English speakers don't do that because they believe that they understand what they read in the first attempt. It is obvious that the FSD does (at least internally) not have a different understanding of the GPL [1]. It may however be wrong to ask e.g. RMS because he is known to reply in unusable ways on similar questions. He either points to the FSF GPL FAQ (which is not 100% correct) or even answers in a oracle. The best idea is to ask Eben Moglen, he is university professor on law and I know from previous private conversations with him that he answers in a useful way when asked specifically. [1] Note that in case that the FSF would not agree with my interpretation of the GPL (the GPL is a asymmetric license that allows GPL projects to use non-GPL code), the FSF would definitely sue Veritas. Veritas does the same with GNU tar since many years and as it seems that RMS believes that GNU tar is some kind of "crown jewels" of the FSF. It is most unlikely that the FSF would tolerate a GPL vilolation for GNU tar. I am in hope that people from Debian read the GPL several times thoroughly before we continue the discussion. I am sure that they then agree with me. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don, I see that you again seem to make wrong conclusions from the facts you mention. Answering your mail will take a long time in case you like to get useful quotes for my claims.I will do this later. For this reason, I like to send you a question that you could answer before I answer your last mail. The main question seems to be whether resulting binaries may be redistributed. You did not give any reason why you believe that cdrtools binaries may not be redistributable by Debian. It would help a lot if you did asume that the GPL allows a GPLd project to use non-GOL code. I will explain you later why this is legal, but you need to send your questions as precise as possible to allow me to answer efficiently. Now tell me why you believe that Debian dannot redistribute binaries. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 12:32]: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though > > > you behave like a Kindergarte would be the right place for you, I'm not > > > doing total mouthfeeding for you now. > > > > As you continue to send irrelevent rants, you are obviously not > > able or willing to have a fruitful discussion. > > > > Please stay off this discussion unless you have anything relevent > > to say! > > Obviously you seem to totally misinterpret the status. I'm a Debian > officer, and it is my duty to protect people who use Debian ressources > from lies. You are a random troll. You send 5 trollish posts in a row. It is obvious that you are the poor troll... It seems that I need to ignore your fruitless rants until you proove that you are willing to have a fruitful discussion based on proovable facts. You could do other people a favor by stopping your useless rants to this list. In case you did not get it: this is the End of discussion with _you_ but I am still in hope to talk to people from _Debian_ who are interested in a fact based discussion. I know that there are people (e.g. Don Armstrong) who are able to have a fact based discussion. I did send a long fact based reply to Don Armstrong today noon and I am still interested in getting a fact based reply on that mail. To Don Armstrong: It may be the main point that people fear that compiling cdrtools creates unredistibutable binaries. I see no reason why binaries may be unredistibutable as I don't see any contradictory requirements from CDDL/GPL. Both licenses are source licenses and require to make the source available in case a binary is distributed. This is no contradiction but just the same requirement. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 12:28]: > > The GPL enforces other contidions under which the resultant binary may be > > distributed but it does not enforce _anything_ on the non-GPL source. > > Well, but it might result in the binary being unredistributable at all. > This is the case here. As Debian provides binaries for anything in main, > and this is not possible with your combination, your package cannot go > to main. You still seem to prefer to write claims without a proof, so it is obvious that your claims are wrong. Could we please have a fact based discussion? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though > you behave like a Kindergarte would be the right place for you, I'm not > doing total mouthfeeding for you now. As you continue to send irrelevent rants, you are obviously not able or willing to have a fruitful discussion. Please stay off this discussion unless you have anything relevent to say! Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#377109: Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also, as usual, you are ignoring the vital fact that the > > > combination of CDDL and GPL is something between legally dubious > > > and illegal. Of course, you ca distribute whatever you want, but > > > Debian is bound to legal behaviour. > > > > It seems that you did never read the GPL and the CDDL in depth > > enough in order to under stand either of them... > > > > The GPL explicitely allows to use the code and it only forbids to > > use GPL code in non-GPL projects. So it is obvious that the GPL > > allows to use non GPL code in a GPL project. > > The GNU GPL only allows this when it is possible to satisfy the > conditions of the GPL for the distributed work. For example, this is > why it is possible to combine MIT licensed works with GPLed works. Your assumption is made on wrong general prerequisites. The CDDL definitely does not have any requirements on "other" code as it is a clearly file based license. For this rerason, your statements (below) on the CDDL are wrong. What you mention about the GPL is only true in case you put GPLd code or parts of GPLd code into a non-GPL project. The relevent part of the GPL is: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Other claims often made about the GPL when talking about the GPL cannot be found in the original GPL text, viloate the law and thus are void. The GPL includes no text that is related to GPL projects that include/use non-GPLd code. As the GPL in general permits to use the code, this is a permitted use. Before writing more, it seems to be iomportant to mention a common missconception: Both, the CDDL and the GPL are _source_ licenses. They both _allow_ binary redistribution under certain conditions but it is definitely wrong to even think about: "under what license might the resultant binary be". There is no "binary license for the project" but there is a permission to distribute/use binaries under certain conditions. The CDDL enforces contidions under which the resultant binary may be distributed but it does not enforce _anything_ on the non-CDDL source. The GPL enforces other contidions under which the resultant binary may be distributed but it does not enforce _anything_ on the non-GPL source. Note that you simply cannot create a license that tries to enforce conditions on other people's code because this would be illegal. Many people forget about the law and about the original intention of the FSF when talking about the GPL. Unless you asume that the FSF is acting like Microsoft, it is obvious that the intention of the FSF it "only" to prevent the GPLd code from disappearing in CSS projects and to keep it free. Both do not apply to code under the CDDL because the CDDL is a free license that itself tries to prevent the code from being made non-free. > Allow me to make it abundantly clear why the CDDL and GPL are > incompatible:[1] > > CDDL 3.1 requires that the Source Code of Covered Works made available > in Executable form be distributable only under the CDDL; CDDL 3.4 > disallows additional restrictions. CDDL 6.2 (patent retaliation) is a > restriction not present in the GPL. See above: The text is correct, the conclusion is wrong. The CDDL is a file based license and does not enforce any restrictions on non-CDDL code. > GPL 2 requires all of the work when distributed together to apply to > the GPL. GPL 6 dissallows additional restrictions. GPL 2c is a > requirement not present in the CDDL. See above: The GPL (see GPL § 2b) only requires the whole work to be distributed under the GPL in case that a non-GPL project tries to use GPL code. The GPL does not contain any text that could cause the assumption the GPL tries to enforce restrictions on non-GPL code. > As you can see, they're incompatible with eachother in either As you see, you just did make the wrong conclusions > direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the drafting of > the CDDL that this was done by design. [See the video of the Solaris > discussion at Debconf 6 if you want to see someone talk about it; you > can also see me discussing this issue and others as well in the same > video.] This is of course wrong - sorry. Please stop distributing wrong claims. I have been involved with the creation of the CDDL and I know that your claim is wrong. The reason for not using the GPL for OpenSolaris is simple: The GPL (if used for OpenSolaris) would not allow Sun to
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 17:50]: > > You seem not to understand how a constitution works > > > > If you do not follow written rules, you end up in arbitraryness. > > Actually, I'm a debian officer while you are not. It seems that my peer > developers actually have some trust in me that I do my work correct. And > all other developers are actually satisfied by the decision that CDDL > doesn't meet the DFSG. The only one always barking and whining are you. > So isn't the chance quite good that you are wrong, and all other people > are right? As you are unable to prove your claims by quoting related parts of written down rules, you are obviously not trustworthy. I am not sure if this is just because you are unable to cooperate/interact with other people or because you like to have arbitraryness at Debian. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 16:40]: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Again: The CDDL fails to meet the DFSG. This is not a claim where CDDL > > > meets your standards or not, but it doesn't meet ours. > > > > Prove that! > > I'm sorry that you don't understand the Debian constitution and how it > works. Debian bodies make decision whether something qualifies debian's > standards or not. You seem not to understand how a constitution works If you do not follow written rules, you end up in arbitraryness. If you are unable to proove that your claim is correct by quoting written down rules, you are obviously not interested in a free Debian. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Using "I have been told" is not the way to go as in the current case where > > the information you have been told is wrong > > Stopp distributing lies. The CDDL does not conform to the DFSG. This > decision has been taken in the way the Debian constitution tells how > such decisions are taken. Such decisions are BTW even valid in the case > his majesty Joerg Schilling doesn't approve them. >From your habbit, it is obvious that's rather you who is distributing lies... > > The CDDL is an approved open/free lisence. > > Again: The CDDL fails to meet the DFSG. This is not a claim where CDDL > meets your standards or not, but it doesn't meet ours. Prove that! While it is simple to prove that the CDDL meets the DFSG: It has been approved by a group pf people that use the same rules as Debian does, I am still waiting for a prove of the converse. > Also, as usual, you are ignoring the vital fact that the combination of > CDDL and GPL is something between legally dubious and illegal. Of > course, you ca distribute whatever you want, but Debian is bound to > legal behaviour. It seems that you did never read the GPL and the CDDL in depth enough in order to under stand either of them... The GPL explicitely allows to use the code and it only forbids to use GPL code in non-GPL projects. So it is obvious that the GPL allows to use non GPL code in a GPL project. This kind us usage is quite common, see the Veritas backup software. Before you send more uninformed claims, please ask Mr. Moglen about the goals of the GPL > > I am sorry to see that some people at Debian did start a "character > > assassination" campaign against the CDDL without ever giving evidence for > > their > > claims. It is a matter of facts that those people are unable to verify > > their > > claims using quotes from http://www.debian.org/social_contract and the parts > > of the CDDL that might not be aliggned with > > http://www.debian.org/social_contract. > > All of this has happened. But you decided instead to ignore the results Wrong! If you are correct, you would be able to prove this, so do it! but nobody from Debian did ever prove that claim... If you believe that it happened already, give pointers! But as it never happened, you are unable to do this. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > >What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from > > >cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into > > >Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue? > > > > Do you believe that Debian created a non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord? > > No, but I am told that the CDDL does not conform to the DFSG and thus > Debian is unable to distribute works licensed under its terms. Using "I have been told" is not the way to go as in the current case where the information you have been told is wrong The CDDL is an approved open/free lisence. I am sorry to see that some people at Debian did start a "character assassination" campaign against the CDDL without ever giving evidence for their claims. It is a matter of facts that those people are unable to verify their claims using quotes from http://www.debian.org/social_contract and the parts of the CDDL that might not be aliggned with http://www.debian.org/social_contract. Instead of having a fact based discussion, these people try to spread rumors against the CDDl and my software. I am not sure about the goals of these people, but they are obviously not supporting free/open software. > > There never was a problem with the original version.. > > > > so just use the original version. > > I'd rather use the version shipped by Debian, which correctly works with > other parts of the Debian system such as Linux and HAL, thanks! The original version works more correctly than the version that is published by Debian and the problems with HAL are caused by bugs from HAL. BTW: the Debian version of cdrtools of course has problems with HAL. Due to the fact that someone from Debian did thinker on the source did just sell one bug for another different one. As I am still in hope that you are interested in the truth, I recommend you to test the original version of cdrtools from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ q~A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350739: #350739: cdrecord status?
>What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from >cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into >Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue? Do you believe that Debian created a non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord? There never was a problem with the original version.. so just use the original version. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: nautilus-cd-burner: fails to call cdrecord properly
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When you compare against classical UNIX/POSIX privileges, cdrecord needs > > the > > following privileges in addition to the UNIX/POSIX basic privs: > > > > - The ability to open privileged device nodes > > > > - The ability to issue several privileged device ioctl()s > > All of this can be handled by correct permissions on device nodes - > which is handled by udev. Regarding the first point: - If you like to weaken the security of you private home computer, it is up to you. Cdrecord has been designed for better security. Regarding the second point: - You are obviously completely uninformed about recent (starting with 2.6.8.1) Linux kernels. If you like to discuss things like this with me, please inform yourself before about the Linux SCSI filtering code. > > - The ability to lock into memory > > This can be done without being root. Wrong in the general case even for Linux. > > - The ability to control (raise) process priority > > This is not needed when the system has a correct scheduler (like Linux > has). You are onbviously uninformed about CD/DVD writing. See also below! The Linux scheduler is not better then other schedulers and it does not allow cdrecord to run under a real time priority without extra privileges. > > - The ability to use port numbers below 1024 > > You don't need that to burn a CD. You are obviously uninformed about cdrecord. Try: man cdrecord /remote/ or read README.rscsi or call cdrecord cdrecord dev=help in order to find out why cdrecord needs this privilege. > > As Linux does not implement a framework that allows a process to obtain > > these > > privileges without being root, it is obvious that cdrecord need to be run > > by > > root or to be installed suid root. > > Which is wrong, as dvd+rw-tools doesn't need these privileges. Do you really like to compare apples with oranges? growisofs is a very simple tool that only supports to write DVDs in packet mode. cdrecord writes in streaming mode If you don't understand the constraints, please ask but avoid sending again untrue claims. > > > Sorry, but Debian only ships free software. > > > > You are obviously missinformed: Debian refuses to ship free software. > > > > Cdrecord is obviously OSI approved free/OSS software, please try to inform > > yourself > > The additional clause (yes, the one you are calling an "interpretation") > you are adding to the GPL (or, more recently, the CDDL) is so utterly > non-free that it doesn't even need to be discussed. I'm very well > informed on this matter, and I won't be corrected by people trying to > retroactively change their (formerly free) licensing scheme when it > comes to discussing about free software. These uninformed (and wrong) rants insult me (the reader) and thus void your credibility. It this what you like to achive here? >From your rants, I get the impression that you just did not understand that I >am a person who takes OSS very serious. I wish this was also true for all Debian maintainers. The CDDL is a first class OSI approved license because it is open, free and allows to mix CDDL code with code from other OSI licenses. The GPL is a second class OSI license because it does not allow GPL code to appear in other OSI approved projects. The GPL is even asymmetric as it allows code with any license (even closed source) to appear inside a GPLd project (*). If you like to have a license related discussion with me, please don't insult me and first read both the GPL and the CDDL as well as http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php and http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract *) Prove by the fact that the FSF did not sue Veritas for including CSS code with their version of GNU tar and by reading GPL §2 first sentence and GPL §2 clause b). Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: nautilus-cd-burner: fails to call cdrecord properly
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 à 14:43 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > > If you did read the mail from the OP, you would know that cdrecord was not > > running as root or suid root at least in one example. Note that cdrecord > > _needs_ root privilleges in order work correctly. > > A CD burning program needing root privileges to work correctly is > obviously broken. Privileges are handled by device permissions, not by > making setuid root any kind of badly written software in the world. For > example, dvd+rw-tools doesn't need root privileges to work correctly. If you really believe this, you are obviously missing the needed background information. When you compare against classical UNIX/POSIX privileges, cdrecord needs the following privileges in addition to the UNIX/POSIX basic privs: - The ability to open privileged device nodes - The ability to issue several privileged device ioctl()s - The ability to lock into memory - The ability to control (raise) process priority - The ability to use port numbers below 1024 As Linux does not implement a framework that allows a process to obtain these privileges without being root, it is obvious that cdrecord need to be run by root or to be installed suid root. > > I did receive enough reports from frustrated Debian users (including the > > k3b authors) to know that there _is_ a problem with the Debian variant of > > cdrecord that prevents it working properly. This problem is not present in > > the > > original version of cdrecord. > > Sorry, but Debian only ships free software. You are obviously missinformed: Debian refuses to ship free software. Cdrecord is obviously OSI approved free/OSS software, please try to inform yourself Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: nautilus-cd-burner: fails to call cdrecord properly
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ > > > > A cdrecord from the original source includes a proper workaround for the > > incompatible interface changes from Linux-2.6.8.1. > > > > Note that the official cdrecord version contains the official DVD writing > > support and not the broken code offered by Debian and others. > > Joerg, we are not going to include this version, and we are not going to > make nautilus-cd-burner use cdrecord instead of dvd+rw-tools. I thought > this would already be clear. Please stop annoying our users with > suggestions that have nothing to do with the topic. > > As Anand is able to write a CD using the cdrecord command line > interface, it is obvious the cdrecord version in Debian is not causing > the problem, which lies in nautilus-cd-burner itself. If you do not read the mails from your users, you are annoying your users. If you did read the mail from the OP, you would know that cdrecord was not running as root or suid root at least in one example. Note that cdrecord _needs_ root privilleges in order work correctly. I did receive enough reports from frustrated Debian users (including the k3b authors) to know that there _is_ a problem with the Debian variant of cdrecord that prevents it working properly. This problem is not present in the original version of cdrecord. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#374685: nautilus-cd-burner: fails to call cdrecord properly
Hi, either your cdrecord binary is not properly installed suid root, or you are suffering from the fact that Debian distributes bastardized (and broken) variants of cdrecord. Proof by: cdrecord: Permission denied. WARNING: Cannot set priority using setpriority(). This is a verification for not being root. If you like to make sure that a suid root cdrecord is able to work properly on Linux-2.6.8.1 or newer, you should use a self-compiled original source: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ A cdrecord from the original source includes a proper workaround for the incompatible interface changes from Linux-2.6.8.1. Note that the official cdrecord version contains the official DVD writing support and not the broken code offered by Debian and others. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: Why this childish behavior?
A bugtracking system is made and is present to discuss bugs and to document bugs. It is not intended to place personal defamations or to place expressions of personal opinions. In this "bugreport" is is not possible to detect a bug. Keeping this "Bug" report open to express personal opinions or to place personal defamations is a definite abuse of the BTS and endangers as a consequence the credability and thus the function of the bug tracking system at all. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: Why this childish behavior?
"Pawel Wiecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are abusing the BTS. It is not me who is abusing the system. A bugtracking system is made and is present to discuss bugs and to document bugs. It is not intended to place personal defamations or to place expressions of personal opinions. In this "bugreport" is is not possible to detect a bug. Keeping this "Bug" report open to express personal opinions or to place personal defamations is a definite abuse of the BTS and endangers as a consequence the credability and thus the function of the bug tracking system at all. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, comments like "Debian would obviously be anti-social and not > trustworthy" don't encourage me to try to have a conversation about this > with you; you don't decide what does or doesn't meet Debian's standards > anyway, it's Debian itself that does this. The fact that you behave this way makes it hard to believe that you are interested in a discussion at all. If you did like a discussion, you did send arguments before. As you still did not send arguments, it is obvious that your intention is not to have a discussion about the compatibility of a license but something else. > It would be a nice bonus if we happened to convince you that the issues with > the CDDL are real issues and you reconsidered your licensing as a result; > but this bug is about whether Debian can accept CDDL-licensed works in main, > not about whether you agree with that decision. If you like to convince people, you need to use arguments. This is something that you failed to do for more than 10 weeks. Note that if you like to discuss such issues, you need to follow written down rules unless you like to make Debian behave untrustworthy. >From your statements, the conclusion still must be: There is no problem with the CDDL and DFSG and thus there is no bug. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: Why this childish behavior?
I will keep closing the bug unless someone is able to send a proof for the original claim The current state is: there is no bug as nobody is able to verify it. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
More than 10 weeks have passed and nobody was able to name a part of the CDDL and explain why it should be incompatible with the DFSG. It is obvious that the CDDL is compatible with the DFSG. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Sorry for the late reply, but surprisingly Mr. Bloch did remove me from the Cc: list. The power of a license lies in it's written down terms and not in what someone think's it says, or in their personal opinion or point of views. To put things right: My only interest with Mr. Bloch is to put his discussion on facts and terms of the GPL and not on his personal opinion and thoughts. He bends information until it fit's his opinion and personal point of view, leaving the intended message far behind. Not to speak about personal offenses he often puts in between his words. I told him twice that I do not threaten him, but he either did not read my mails completly or bended them to his personal comfort. He accused me of violating the GPL. When I asked him to cite the paragraphs of the GPL that he claims to be violated, he in return send his personal opinions. After repeatedly reasking him for facts and cites of paragraphs he claims I violate, he found out that there is no evidence on his claims. So I asked him to close the bug but still keep it readable for public interest. And that is where we are right now: He now says that there is no GPL violation that he can claim, but he will leave the bug open for no reason. Right now the bug has been closed and moved out of public sight. It looks to me as if Mr. Bloch holds a grudge against me, but that does not belong in the Debian bugtracking system. It is a misuse of that platform. Wasn't the GPL invented as a safeguard for users of software and not as an instrument for softwareusers against the authors and to waste the time of those authors keeping alive the idea of publicly available software by writing it and putting it in the public on base of free licenses? If users are misusing the GPL as an instrument against programers, why should a programmer then put it's software under such a license. This kind of misuse has the power of underminig and destroying the system of free software. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thank you for this clarification. Unfortunately it does not include a translation for an important part found in the German text: > Punkt 4: > > Es liegt ebenfalls keine Vertragsverletzung beim Vertrieb weiterer sich im > Archiv cdrtools befindlichen Werke vor, deren Rechteinhaber aus mehr als > einer Person (Joerg Schilling) bestehen. Auch unter der strengen > Interpretation des Paragraphen 3 der GPLv2 (siehe Punkt 3) kann nicht von > einer Verletzung der Vorgaben der Paragraphen 2 und 3 ausgegangen werden, > weil die Voraussetzungen zum Übersetzen der Werke entweder auf triviale > Weise hergestellt werden können oder die notwendigen Komponenten von Joerg > Schilling bereits öffentlich zugänglich gemacht wurden, unter anderem in > vorherigen Versionen des Archives cdrtools. It is important to know that the part of the text from the OP ( from GPL §3) cannot be set in relation to GPL §2. While GPL §3 requires the "scripts" used to control compilation and installation of the executable to be included in the source, GPL §3 does definitely not require them to be made available under GPL. GPL §2 does not define these scripts to be part of the "work". In fact, the "Schily makefile system" is a different work that is used unmodified by many other works. In addition, the Makefiles are no "scripts" but a program written in a non-algorithmic prgramming language. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Da es offenbar Missverstaendnisse gibt und English fuer das Diskutieren von Lizenz/Urherberrechtsproblemen nicht geeignet ist (anderes Rechtssystem) nun in einer Sprache die jeder versteht > > So please reply to my mail instead of adding unrelated new stuff. > > Well, why do you not reply to my mail first instead of stripping > everything away including the uncomfortable but pretty relevant > questions? Wenn Du neue Schlachtfelder aufmachen willst, dann kommt mir das nach typischem Troll Verhalten vor :-( Falls Du ernsthaft daran interessiert bist Probleme zu loesen und nicht einfach nur jeden Tag neue zu schaffen, dann solltest Du ein Ding erstmal zu Ende diskutieren. > > Sorry, but the way you are arguing shows that you obviously have problems > > to understand the GPL. > > As said before, our understanding of the GPL conforms with what most > Debian developers think. Why do you think that your "interpretation" is > the only valid one? Es tut mir leid, aber wenn jemand ueber Dinge schreibt die gar nicht in der GPL vorkommen, dann musz ich davon ausgehen dasz er die GPL noch nie bedaechtig genug gelesen hat. > > > Please tell me why you are trying to use the "majestetis pluralis"? > > Of course: because I consulted our internal cdrtools maintainer group > and I am also refering to the comments of debian-legal people. I am not > your lone crazy opponent. Wenn tatsaechlich mehrere Personen daran beteiligt sein sollten, dann wuerde ich unterschiedliche und sinnvolle Meinungen erwarten - so wie das frueher bei Debian auch der Fall war. In letzter Zeit sehe ich aber nur noch persoenliche Angriffe gegen mich ohne wirkliche Reaktionen auf meine Einwaende. > > > URLS: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00362.html > > > > The person did not understand the GPL and is writing unrelated stuff. > > So your only explanation is that most people out there did not > understand the GPL while you do? Even if we explain to you in detail how > we believe the GPL should be interpreted? Giving the best opportunity to > demonstrate the inconsistencies or wrong conclusions in this explanation? Es ist leider eine traurige Tatsache, dasz die meisten Leute die ueber die GPL schreiben, diese offenbar noch nie oder noch nie ausreichend vollstaendig gelesen haben. Ich fordere Dich daher hiermit auf in Zukunft Deine Behauptungen mit Zitaten aus der GPL zu belegen. Anderenfalls kann ich Deine Einwaende nur als Deine persoenliche Meinung sehen. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00391.html > > > > Unrelated to our discussion. > > Indeed, it adresses another problem with the cdrecord source, but the > issue is not that different. The presense of GPL-incompatible invariant > sections is well related to our discussion. Since you seem to have read > read our official guidelines, DFSG and the Social Contract I guess you > know that "we do not hide problems" is one of the primary principles > there. We consider incompatible license mixtures to be a such problem. > For the cdrtools package, we can only state: Dieses Thema haben wir vor _langer_ Zeit abschlieszend besprochen! Solltest Du _wirklich_ mit anderen Leuten von Debian Ruecksprache halten, dann wuerde ich erwarten, dasz diese Dich mal darueber informieren was damals besprochen wurde Hinweis: es gibt nach Auffasung von Debian keine invarianten Stellen in cdrtools. Debian hingegen ignoriert die GPL: ---> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. <--- > > Why don't you read my last mail? > > Why don't you read mine before? I doubt you will answer this honestly so > I repeat the things said there: Ich wuerde mich freuen, wenn ich von Dir endlich mal _neue_ Argumente sehen wuerde und nicht welche, die bereits vorher widerlegt wurden. > |- It requires scripts to be present, but makefiles are no scripts, > |they are just code in a different language. > > The common definition for "script" is a list of connected commands > interpreted by a native application. Even much more sophisticated > languages like Perl/Python/... interpret files called scripts (referring to > their > documentation). Your "code" is written in plain text, containing mostly > program invocations or closely related instructions, and the whole thing > is interpreted by a native application. Everything required for beeing > declared as "script" in terms of GPL is there. Gut, dasz Du bei der Klassifizierung prinzipiell meine Auffassung teilst! Makefiles passen aber nicht in diese Kategorie. Makefiles sind definitiv nicht eine Li
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #include > * Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 20 2006, 11:21:30PM]: > > > It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-( > > > > The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when talking about the compile > > environment: > > ... > > Joerg, could you please stay ontopic and not flame? We try to discuss > with you... Sorry, I definitely did not flame but I don't have impression that you are intrested in a discussion! So please reply to my mail instead of adding unrelated new stuff. > And we *do* understand the GPL, and its not only one interpretation of > the GPL. You can read our -legal list too see much more of that, please > look at [URLS] for more information. Sorry, but the way you are arguing shows that you obviously have problems to understand the GPL. > Please tell me why you are trying to use the "majestetis pluralis"? Unrelated stuff removed * > And finally, in the last mail I have already presented the exact chain > of conclusions, including the intent of the OP. I expect you (as > programmer knowing how logic works) to be able to find the wrong link > there -- so would you consider answering this (uncomfortable) question? > > URLS: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00362.html The person did not understand the GPL and is writing unrelated stuff. See my last mail for more information. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00391.html Unrelated to our discussion. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00375.html Unrelated to our discussion. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00376.html This is what I did explain in my last mail! Why don't you read my last mail? > > If you would understand enough from the topic, you would understand that > > the "related" makefiles of my software are always present under the same > > license as the rest of the project but the unrelated (because project > > indepentent) makefilesystem is just available under it's native license. > > Somehow all our other GPLed software has "related build software" either > licensed under GPL compatible license (*) or beeing that far different that > its maker can declare the outcome as a product rather than a derivate > (compilers). See above, you did not read the mail you are replying to. Let me explain it another time: "cdrecord/Makefile" is no script but a program used to control compilation of the sub project cdrecord. This file is part of the cdrtools project as well as "TARGETS/cdrecord" is. "RULES/rules1.top" is part of another project and not part of the project cdrtools. This file may be under a different licernse for this reason (unless you define the GPL as a licence that is voiolating the DFSG). The smake source is also another project and _not_ even included although you need smake on most platforms. Please do not reply again unless you have new arguments that are really related to the claims of the OP. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #include > * Eduard Bloch [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 05:32:17PM]: > > > And finally, in the last mail I have already presented the exact chain > > of conclusions, including the intent of the OP. I expect you (as > > programmer knowing how logic works) to be able to find the wrong link > > there -- so would you consider answering this (uncomfortable) question? > > PS: > > Also please state which license does actually cover the cdrecord > source. Please stay with the current topic and don't try to restart a discussion that has been finished long ago. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeez, you have ways of finding "similarities". I would hardly translate > that as "rubbish" especially because of the context - it has been on the > same polemic levels as your claims about gcc because of beeing less > pervasive than Sun's compiler. Even then, is that all of my "false > claims" that you can find? Maybe you better your own ways of checking > the correctness of a program? I still wonder how you can declare hidding > of filename truncation "okay", for example. Der Ton macht die Musike and I did not quote everything just to protect you > What is so hard to understand? If you declare your source package as > "medium" than it is okay to split it into atomic source packages with > different license, following YOUR interpretation. In this case we have a > build system package and a code package. But that code package does not > have a component required to be built, which is required by the GPL! It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-( The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when talking about the compile environment: - It requires scripts to be present, but makefiles are no scripts, they are just code in a different language. - Sources based on the Schily Makefilesystem require 'smake' to compile on all platforms. Smake is not part of the source packages and not required by the GPL. On some of the platorms GNU make may help you but as GNU make is extremely buggy, you will have problems on almost every platform although GNU make claims to run enywhere. GNU make is not even present on mostz platforms. - The GPL does not require the Compiler or other needed programs to be part of the sources although they may be needed. If you would understand enough from the topic, you would understand that the "related" makefiles of my software are always present under the same license as the rest of the project but the unrelated (because project indepentent) makefilesystem is just available under it's native license. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You did write (easy to proof as) false claims many times in the past. > > Just remember the case where you did call Sun Studio C "rubbish" just > > because > > it flags bad code that GCC let's pass. > > He? I cannot remember writting this, and I would not use the word > "rubbish". Let me quote you: > Das behauptest du EINFACH SO, weil dein Compiler ein Paar irrevelevante Meldungen ausgespuckt hast? Amen. < Looks similar to what I had in mind. > > Have a look at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract and try to > > understand > > what section 9. "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software" means: > > > > > > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is > > distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license > > must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium > > must be free software. > > > > In our case, the "medium" is the tar archive that is used to publish > > cdrtools. > > Hear, hear. And what does the file "COPYING" with the GPL license text > do there, in the main directory of your "medium"? Is it not supposed to > cover the whole thing, as in "placing restrictions on other software"? > YOU placed the license file there and I interpret your statement as a > direct proposal to separate the split the package into the "code" and > "build system" parts. Correct? ??? > > But before you do that, it would make sense to think whether the claims of > > the > > OP make sense at all. > > If you follow the extreme GPL-interpretation of the OP you are clearly > violating the GPL and any contributor to cdrtools has the right to sue > you. I do not read it that way and I know your role in the cdrtools > development, but you do not make it easy :-( Nice to see: Now we are back to the content of my first mail. Iff Debian would follow the extreme GPL-interpretation of the OP, Debian would need to call the GPL clearly non-free because it then would violate the DFSG Section 9. As Debian calls the GPL "free", the claims of the OP obviously do not apply from Debians view. So let us close this for now, or do you like to start an endless discussion? > Sorry, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html presents it in a > different light. However, it only refers to linking. I will ask our > legal group for further details. Do you _really_ like to believe the claims from people that at the same server call the GFDL a "free" license? The CDDL is clearly accepted by OSI and I did not yet hear that Debian DFSG rules have become different from the OSI rules. Why should Debian have problems with the CDDL? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If the GPL is a free license acording to the Debian Social Contract > > there is no need to do this.. > > Joerg, please stop that. You have already proved by your recent actions > that you DO NOT understand the GPL. Don't try to justify your "claims" > with another document that is neither understood by you nor is really > your business. Eduard, please stop your FUD. You did write (easy to proof as) false claims many times in the past. Just remember the case where you did call Sun Studio C "rubbish" just because it flags bad code that GCC let's pass. Take it as a fact that nobody will believe you unless you proove your claims with real facts. > > Note that the Schily Makefilesystem is a different "work" and just published > > together the rest of the cdrtools. If the GPL _really_ insists in polluting > > I reallize that. Guess why I suggested double-licensing. Guess why I did suggest that you should find someone to explain you the background. Have a look at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract and try to understand what section 9. "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software" means: The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. In our case, the "medium" is the tar archive that is used to publish cdrtools. But before you do that, it would make sense to think whether the claims of the OP make sense at all. Note that the CDDL as used for the Schily Makefilesystem gives more freedom to the users of the cdrtools than the other projects that are covered under the GPL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #include > * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 01:09:03PM]: > > The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several > > different "works". > > > > One complete and separate work is the Schily Makefilesystem. > > It is independent of a specific project and published under th CDDL. > > You are free to double-license it. Look at the Perl project if you need > a "big reference". If the GPL is a free license acording to the Debian Social Contract there is no need to do this.. Note that the Schily Makefilesystem is a different "work" and just published together the rest of the cdrtools. If the GPL _really_ insists in polluting _other_ software, the GPL must be considered unfree and should be banned from Debian. > > If you believe that the GPL is violating the Debian Social Contract > > (see http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract section 9), you should > > send an alert to the Debian Legal list. > > Honestly, I think we should consider merging cdrtools package with the > one fork from the last real-GPL version (what was it... dvdrtools?) that I encourage you to find someone who teaches you the rules of the Debian Social Contract, this would help you to understand the background of free software. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350739: cdrtools: GPL violation - makefiles distributed under non-GPL-compatible license??
The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several different "works". One complete and separate work is the Schily Makefilesystem. It is independent of a specific project and published under th CDDL. If you believe that the GPL is violating the Debian Social Contract (see http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract section 9), you should send an alert to the Debian Legal list. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:23PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Let us try to avoid generic discussions that are not related to star. > > > Show me the exact art of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with > > the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG > > is incompatible with the CDDL. > > > As it seems that most people do not know the text, here are the links: > > > The CDDL has been approved to be compatible with this: > > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > > The DSFG is here: > > > http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract > > > If you compare the both texts, you will find that the CDDL has been > > verified against a text that is gradually more strict than the DSFG. > > > Note that in case Debian tries to enforce rules that are not written down > > properly, it looks as if Debian is acting with arbitrariness. > > Debian is applying human judgement when interpreting a set of guidelines. > Only the OSI has ever claimed that the DFSG are a suitable set of rules that > can be applied literally and mechanically to licenses to determine their > freeness; Debian never has. I am sure you have no authority on Debian and I hope that you are not speaking for the majority in Debian. You still did not answer my question: Show me the exact part of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. And a hint: if Debian really does not follow the Debien DFSG on http://www.us.debian.org/social_contrac but rather follows your arbitrariness, Debian would obviously be anti-social and not trustworthy. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_ > > the > > CDDL is not following Debians rules. > > Quite simple: I want to be able to set up a server, putting "main" into > sources.list and not having to wonder wether I just submitted myself > under the jurisdiction of Kiribati (taken from the member list of the > United Nations by pure coincidence). And this can happen if choice of > venue clauses are allowed in main. Well, then you obviously need to remove _all_ GPL packets as any person could sue you anywhere in the world because of the _missing_ choice of venue. Please don't tell me you would never travel to "Kiribati" - do you know for shure that you will not like to visit your new mother in law (located in Kiribati) next year? > And please stop telling me that I don't like the CDDL; this is not about > the CDDL which can be used without a choice of venue clause. Of course, I cannot speak about you, but looking at the recent CDDL shows that most people who did post did not give real arguments but rather seem to be anti CDDL. > > Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely > > allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant. > > In any case, this is totally unrelated to star, CDDL and choice of > venue. Who was the first one to use the word "FUD" in this discussion? > > > Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project.. > > Why, do you plan to relicense star under GPLv3? Definitely not as long as the GPLv3 still contains the permission to discriminate people. I did chose CDDL for two reasons: - Star is using source from Sun that is licensed under CDDL - I like to have star under a more kliberate license than the GPL. As a note: The CDDL is a reworked MPL and I have been in heavy discussion with Sun lawyers to make the choice of venue part modified in a way acceptable by "joe author". Debian currently includes MPL based packets in "main" and the MPL is definitely less DFSG compliant than the CDDL. >From the MPL: 11. MISCELLANEOUS. This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. As you see, all MPL programs have the choice of venue set to Santa Clara. I believe this is completely inacceptable and I am sure that private authors who use the MPL are not aware of this problem. If Debian would like to remove star, then they need to remove these packets too: http://freshmeat.net/browse/189/ Freshmeat lists 230 projects licensed under MPL. The fact that nobody seems to start a MPL related discussion looks like the CDDL discussion on Debian-legal has been started by some trolls who just like to discriminate against the CDDL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Let us try to avoid generic discussions that are not related to star. Show me the exact art of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. As it seems that most people do not know the text, here are the links: The CDDL has been approved to be compatible with this: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The DSFG is here: http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract If you compare the both texts, you will find that the CDDL has been verified against a text that is gradually more strict than the DSFG. Note that in case Debian tries to enforce rules that are not written down properly, it looks as if Debian is acting with arbitrariness. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
"Pawel Wiecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 14, 4:28pm, Thomas Weber wrote: > > OTOH, I seriously wonder why the maintainer didn't react on this one, > > one way or another. > > Well, what sort of reacion do you expect? I'm about to upload 1.5a56 with some > bugfixes backported from current deb version. What is your intention with this attempt? The current release is 1.5a70 and a71 will come up shortly. If Debian really goes this way, it seems that I need to make public that Debian is anti-social and supporting people who like to infringe the copyright and license. Note: the CDDL clearly is a license that follows the rules from Debian. If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_ the CDDL is not following Debians rules. Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant. Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project.. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. > > Huh? *You* were talking about the Debian rules, now you are switching to > legal backgrounds? Could you please decide what you want? You did start this discussion. I only try to explain things. > > > Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced > > > to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. > > > > This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to > > _BAD_ users. > > I suggest you don't take this stuff personally; perhaps you sell the > rights on the software tomorrow to someone else, who could then start to > sue the users based upon your choice of venue of today. Again: if you believe that Debian should rightfully forbid a choice of venue to authors, it does implicitely at the same time require a choice of venue for people who are infringing the rights of the author and like to sue the author. Conclusion: if Debian would act this way, Debian would be anti-social and put the authors off Debian. As a later result, there would be no free software anymore. Free Software is a curtesy of it's authors. If you take away all rights from the authors, you loose anything you have. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 01:25 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: > > It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. > > Well, I believe I understand them quite well. OTOH, I don't consider > this problem to be about my understanding, so let's drop this. It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. > > If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the > > Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would > > be anti-social. > > Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced > to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to _BAD_ users. > Given the vast number of packages in Debian and assuming every package > had a license like that, every Debian user would have to know the > jurisdictions of almost every country in the world -- just to be able to > decide wether installing this package is putting him at risk or not. > > And stuff like this just shouldn't be in main. The CDDL is an aproved OSS compliant license. Please don't try to create FUD on the CDDL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would be anti-social. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#319487: star: file conflict with grunch
The problem has been resolved with Dave Platt more than a year ago. He did rename his (younger) program to grunch-match. Note that the match Schily match(1) program is more than 20 years old and implements a grep like interface around an enhanced version of the pattern matcher from Martin Richards in: * * "A Compact Function for Regular Expression Pattern Matching", * Software-Practice and Experience, Vol. 9, 527-534 (1979) This unique pattern matcher is used by _all_ schily utilities that need pattern matching: bsh(1) match(1) change(1) sfind(1) p(1) rmt(8) rscsi(8) star(1) ved(1) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#310662: star: missing most of bin/*
Hi, let me correct this a bit. There never has been any mess in the official star source. There may however have been a mess in the patches applied at Debian. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
