Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On 3/24/07, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 02:08:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006: * creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence which happened to be DFSG-incompatible * rebranding of Firefox to Iceweasel due to trademark issues * rebranding of Seamonkey to Iceape due to trademark issues * rebranding of Thunderbird to Icedove due to trademark issues There must be so much more, in which case I hope you may add to this list, and if there's enough contributions, maybe a wiki page could be set up and advertised. You have your priorities wrong. A fork and three rebrandings are more like nuisances compared to for example the bug reports that Debian maintainers forwarded to upstream, without or with fixes. Sure, maybe those aren't PR-friendly, but they count, and they are the heart of our contribution IMO. I'm pretty aware that there's plenty of these reports and patches. But the point of the mail is 'notable' stuff, EG. the contributions to GTKFB by the d-i team for the graphical-installer (who is actually mentioned in the README file of that backend in GTK+2.10 release). This is the kind of example I was hoping this mail would trigger. Please note that 'notable' doesn't necessarily mean more important. A major refactoring is more likely to be more notable than a year-long patch submission exercise, for example. NB: The GTKFB example inspired this mail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related personal atacks. I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of them, just telling me look in the archive. So you seem not to be able to give me any concrete pointer. So whom should i trust now? You? Mr. Bloch? There was a reason why i asked for concrete pointers. There is a reason why I do not waste my time with people on a Debian list In January 2006, some people from Debian started with a calumniation campaign against me and my projects. They amongst others published unproven claims on the license ofthe original software and Mr. Bloch was one of their leaders. I asked Mr. Bloch to either prove his claims or to admit that the claims are wrong. Nothing happens except that Mr. Bloch did send personal offenses, some in the public and a lot in private mail. Npthing useful happened and at some time, there was no hope for a move. About two months later, Don Armstrong started a new discussion that looked as if there was a potential for a useful move. The whole discussion started again and although the agression and wrong claims have been started by Debian, I explained why the claims from Debian are void. I asked Don Armstrong to prove the claims or to admit that they are wrong. Don Armstrong did send a lot of speudo-arguments but did not send any correct quote from GPL, CDDL and the FROSS rules from Bruce Perence that could prove the claims. What he send (claiming to quote) was a funny creation of new sentences made from random words of the GPL In the beginning, it looked as if this was not made by intention and I again explained why the claims made by Debian people around Mr. Bloch are wrong. I asked Don Armstrong again to either prove the claims by correct quotes or to admit that the claims are wrong. after a long discussion we reached the time where Don Armstrong did not find an excuse any more. At this point, he told me that does not have the time to continue this discussion. Note that Don Armstrong started the discussion Now, nearly one year later, I am still waiting for a proof of the claims or someone who admits that Mr. Bloch is using wrong claims. I will not make the mistake again to waste time with finding pointers that prove my statements as long as it is obvious that the arguments from Mr. Bloch and his friends are wrong. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Sun, Mar 25 2007, 11:58:39AM]: Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related personal atacks. I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of them, just telling me look in the archive. So you seem not to be able to give me any concrete pointer. So whom should i trust now? You? Mr. Bloch? There was a reason why i asked for concrete pointers. There is a reason why I do not waste my time with people on a Debian list This is not about wasting time, this is simply about you proving things that you write. In January 2006, some people from Debian started with a calumniation campaign against me and my projects. They amongst others published unproven claims on the license ofthe original software and Mr. Bloch was one of their leaders. Guess what, I just had some time for bug triage and some minor complication (at the first glance) with the licensing was among the candidates. The topic was more complicated than I expected and I had to correct the initial assessment especially after you set an ultimatum with an option of legal actions, actually trying to make all inconvenient statements appear void. But that story is past, at that time there were simple technical solutions to make almost everyone happy. I asked Mr. Bloch to either prove his claims or to admit that the claims are wrong. Nothing happens except that Mr. Bloch did send personal offenses, some in the public and a lot in private mail. Npthing useful happened and at some time, there was no hope for a move. I guess you talk about the discussion on cdrtools-devel. But which personal offense do you mean? Which? Do we have your permission to reveal the whole mail thread to the public? About two months later, Don Armstrong started a new discussion that looked as if there was a potential for a useful move. The whole discussion started again and although the agression and wrong claims have been started by Debian, I explained why the claims from Debian are void. I asked Don Armstrong to prove the claims or to admit that they are wrong. Don Armstrong did send a lot of speudo-arguments but did not send any correct quote from GPL, CDDL and the FROSS rules from Bruce Perence that could prove the claims. What he send (claiming to quote) was a funny creation of new sentences made from random words of the GPL In the beginning, it looked as if this was not made by intention and I again explained why the claims made by Debian people around Mr. Bloch are wrong. What? Again, which claims? The first story was about licensing of the build system. The second was about licensing of the LINKED software components. They were triggered by TWO separated actions done BY YOU. You are not that naive to be unable to distinguish them. And have I lead the discussion against you then? NO. Stop reinterpreting my role as the scapegoat of the hour. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Saturday 24 March 2007 19:53, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project. I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros? Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested in an answer from me. They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out. If other distros did see a license problem, it wuld be obvious that they ask me before changing to a fork that is definitely worse than the original. Very light assumption, but not always true. Can you believe it ? ... Why do you think they are dying to get in touch with you when the thing looks definitely obvious -- your toy is b0rken ... have another one. Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not convinced by Mr. Bloch... h, slow day, leading to another naive assumption. Please stop bringing shame on you! -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is a reason why I do not waste my time with people on a Debian list One wonders why you even bothered to send your original mail to us, then. I believe we'd all appreciate it if you stopped wast[ing] [your] time. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Joerg Schilling wrote: Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that the license change was definitely not the reason for the fork (the fork would have been done in a different way if the license change was the reason). And again wrong, your license change *IS* the reason, we simply do not accept incompatible licenses. No matter how much you love it. Repeating your wrong claims does not make them true Pot, kettle, black. While there are some cases, where the GPL is incompatible with other licenses (e.g. LGPL and CDDL), For the first case, you are wrong; LGPL is *explicitly* compatible with GPL [0]: 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices. [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html For the second case, it is good that you finally acknowledge that GPL and CDDL are in fact incompatible. I am glad we now have that public admission from you. there are many cases where the GPL allows a combination of code. Yes, and in every such case one of three things has happened: 1) the non-GPL code has a license that is GPL compatible, 2) the author(s) of the non-GPL code is willing to allow it to be relicensed to GPL, 3) the author(s) of the GPL code is willing to make a special exemption to the GPL to allow it to use non-GPL code (as is the case sometimes with GPL programs that link to OpenSSL). Well known cases are e.g. when the GPL code is a derived work of _other_ code Wrong. The history of now GPL-licensed code is irrelevant. If I am the sole author of version 0.7 of some CDDL code and I decide to relicense the next release, version 0.8, to GPL; or if I take a piece of existing BSD code, modify it to be part of my GPL program, and relicense it to GPL for consistency (an act that is permitted by the BSD license), that piece of code is no longer able to be combined with other CDDL code. One would have to go back and obtain the CDDL or BSD code as originally licensed in order to combine it with other CDDL code. or when there is a mere aggregation of code from different works. As this is true for what is done inside cdrtools Wrong. If a single cdrtools binary includes both GPL code and CDDL code (which I presume is the case; otherwise there would be no issue to discuss), this is not mere aggregation [1]: In addition, mere aggregation of *another* work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the *other* work under the scope of this License. (emphasis added) [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html You would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that a single binary executable (which just happens to be built from both GPL and CDDL code) is more than one work, which would be necessary for the aggregation clause to apply. cdrtools of course have no license problem. You can say it all you want but that doesn't make it so. HTH. -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Joerg Schilling wrote: - the fork does not work decently and thus annoyes them This is probably the funniest quote of the whole discussion. Thanks for making my day. BTW, who said flamewars are a nuisance to the Debian project? I've never seen developers as united as when Mr Schilling is around. With a few more people like him we would probably be always working together. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is a reason why I do not waste my time with people on a Debian list One wonders why you even bothered to send your original mail to us, then. I believe we'd all appreciate it if you stopped wast[ing] [your] time. If you believe you have time again, you should answer the questions I send you last year or admit that the claims from some Debian people against me and my projects are wrong. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: If you believe you have time again, you should answer the questions I send you last year or admit that the claims from some Debian people against me and my projects are wrong. Or, better yet, we could all just stop feeding the troll. If he's actually serious that his 'work' is under a free license, then there is no problem. If he thinks there's a problem with a fork, then it's not a free license. QE fucking D. Can we all move on now? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
[Please CC me on replies: I'm not subscribed.] On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't buy it. The license change to XFree86 was committed on 13 February 2004: http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml.diff?r1=1.23r2=1.24hideattic=0 http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html The X.Org Foundation was formed on 22 January 2004. The XFree86 disaster started long before either of those events. You still ignore facts! I was quoting one of the leading X.org members who is obviously better informed than you. Do you really believe that it was posible to obtain a single letter top level domain name in 2004? X.org has been founded around 1987. Too much FUD from you, I need to stop replying here The X Consortium is quite old, yes, and x.org as a domain name has been around for quite some time. X.Org as an organisation (part of The Open Group) was XC's successor, and had basically no influence on X development, and became a front for corporate interests. The X.Org Foundation, as the successor to X.Org/TOG, was founded in 2004, as Roberto noted. While Sun have undoubtedly contributed valuable sponsorship and developer time (Alan Coopersmith in particular, though he has always been active), the fork would've happened with or without Sun. It happened because the X development community at the time found XFree86's relicensing unacceptable, and was icing on the cake to the direction XFree86 had been taking for quite some time. The X development community had essentially reformed around fd.o, and it was important to keep it moving forward as a separate organisation that could revive both the XFree86 codebase and the X.Org name, drawing together distributors and the open source community (who were rallying around fd.o, and communicating extensively with each other[0]), and the corporate interests such as Sun, who had previously not been strongly involved with the open source side of things, but are involved in development today. So, please stop using the X.Org Foundation as an example for corporate interests dictating the direction of a project, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever[1], and is otherwise irrelevant to the cdr* discussion. Daniel, X.Org Foundation board member, fd.o type, X input maintainer, et al [0]: At the time of the split, I was one. [1]: One of the reasons the old X.Org/TOG and XC struggled for relevance was that corporate politics dominated above all, and people fought to see whose technology would be officially backed by X.Org, and fought also for funding to develop technologies, which lead to disasters like MAS, which never gained any community traction. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Sam Morris wrote: my SCSI devices being set up incorrectly (what SCSI devices? My system uses PATA!), followed by failure. Your PATA and ATAPI devices will look like SCSI devices to the system in the next Debian stable version after Etch ;-) All PATA is going under the SCSI wing just like SATA did. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Monday 26 March 2007 04:08, Daniel Stone wrote: The X Consortium is quite old, yes, and x.org as a domain name has been around for quite some time. Wow, the first mail in this thread that's anywhere near interesting and worth reading. Thanks Daniel! pgpvBcM1sMWb2.pgp Description: PGP signature
notable Debian contributions in 2006
Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006: * creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence which happened to be DFSG-incompatible * rebranding of Firefox to Iceweasel due to trademark issues * rebranding of Seamonkey to Iceape due to trademark issues * rebranding of Thunderbird to Icedove due to trademark issues There must be so much more, in which case I hope you may add to this list, and if there's enough contributions, maybe a wiki page could be set up and advertised. (me hopes this is the right list) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Please forgive me for feeding the troll. On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006: * creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence which happened to be DFSG-incompatible You are not talking about a notable contribution but about a notable damage to FLOSS caused by people who are unwilling to cooperate in a useful way. Joerg, as a piece of friendly advice, I think it would be wise to drop it. You continue to do your reputation harm by going around making this claim. Does Debian's fork somehow harm you? Does it harm your software? The question to both of those is probably no. Why not just ignore it? Note that there was a licence change with cdrtools but this was a change towards more freedom and the current official cdrtools are of course still accepted free software and do not have any license problem. The question is not about free vs non-free. It is a question of compatibility. For example, the original (4-clause) BSD license is arguably more free than the GPL (depending on whether you look from the perspective of developer or the user). However, it is still incompatible with the GPL. Nobody argues this point. I believe that this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is *not* compatible with the GPL. Note that the license change was definitely not the reason for the fork (the fork would have been done in a different way if the license change was the reason). The reason for the change rather was the unability/unwillingness of Mr. Eduard Bloch in cooperating. You need to blame him for causing damage to Debian users... Of course, you seem to continue with the personal attacks, so it is quite obvious that you care little, if at all, for the technical/legal aspects of the situation. If you like to vote for _useful_ contributions, the unneeded fork named cdrkit is not the right choice. Note that while the original software does include a lot of enhancements and usability emendations since the last year, there have been only speudo changes and new bugs in the Debian fork. I believe that Eduard already refuted this argument, pointing out that many of the changes were just cosmetic and that many of the problems you claimed existed in the Debian version were not problems or were not relevant to Debian. In fact, here is Eduard's reply: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02863.html Of course, you never did reply to his counter-claim, which makes me think that he was right and you were wrong. In fact, nearly everything that you have said on Debian lists in relation to this matter strikes as angry hand waving and nothing more. If you do not like to suffer from the problems that have been introduced in the fork, just use the free original software from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ Again, Eduard refuted every single one of your claims of problems in the Debian cdrkit. Please feel free to prove him wrong (with a technical argument, not a personal attack). Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On 10968 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote: * creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence which happened to be DFSG-incompatible Note that there was a licence change with cdrtools but this was a change towards more freedom and the current official cdrtools are of course still accepted free software and do not have any license problem. Wrong. Note that the license change was definitely not the reason for the fork (the fork would have been done in a different way if the license change was the reason). And again wrong, your license change *IS* the reason, we simply do not accept incompatible licenses. No matter how much you love it. -- bye Joerg A BSP means that many DDs and other mere mortals get together to play xroach. Sadly, that package was removed from Debian some time ago, so they have to squash other bugs (preferably RC) instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are not talking about a notable contribution but about a notable damage to FLOSS caused by people who are unwilling to cooperate in a useful way. Joerg, as a piece of friendly advice, I think it would be wise to drop it. You continue to do your reputation harm by going around making this claim. Does Debian's fork somehow harm you? Does it harm your software? The question to both of those is probably no. Why not just ignore it? Shouldn't the people in the Debian project be interested in preventing the loss of reputation caused by this unneeded fork? This fork harms the users of Debian in at least two ways: - the fork does not work decently and thus annoyes them - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project. Note that there was a licence change with cdrtools but this was a change towards more freedom and the current official cdrtools are of course still accepted free software and do not have any license problem. ... this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is *not* compatible with the GPL. Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by unproven accusations. Note that I am waiting for an explanation for the pretended problems since January 2006. Note that what I like to see is a cleanly written list of problems and a clean list of quotes from the GPL and probably the OSI rules that prove the claims. What I've read so far was a list od incorrect (modified) quotes from the GPL... As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and friends, we could carefully asume that they are void. Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks. If you do not like to suffer from the problems that have been introduced in the fork, just use the free original software from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ Again, Eduard refuted every single one of your claims of problems in the Debian cdrkit. Please feel free to prove him wrong (with a technical argument, not a personal attack). You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it with the fork 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that the license change was definitely not the reason for the fork (the fork would have been done in a different way if the license change was the reason). And again wrong, your license change *IS* the reason, we simply do not accept incompatible licenses. No matter how much you love it. Repeating your wrong claims does not make them true While there are some cases, where the GPL is incompatible with other licenses (e.g. LGPL and CDDL), there are many cases where the GPL allows a combination of code. Well known cases are e.g. when the GPL code is a derived work of _other_ code or when there is a mere aggregation of code from different works. As this is true for what is done inside cdrtools, cdrtools of course have no license problem. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Hi, On Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 16:40:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks. Please point us to those. I couldn't find those, only technical base stuff with well knowledge from Eduard. I want to read both sides, as i am sick of the bitching of cdrecord coming up once and a while on several Debian lists, as well as in German newspaper magazines. Greetings Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 04:40:34PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg, as a piece of friendly advice, I think it would be wise to drop it. You continue to do your reputation harm by going around making this claim. Does Debian's fork somehow harm you? Does it harm your software? The question to both of those is probably no. Why not just ignore it? Shouldn't the people in the Debian project be interested in preventing the loss of reputation caused by this unneeded fork? This fork harms the users of Debian in at least two ways: - the fork does not work decently and thus annoyes them - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project. I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros? They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out. this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is *not* compatible with the GPL. Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by unproven accusations. I would hardly call it misquoting: [1] Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual property. [2] Common reasons for incompatibility When checking licences for compatibilty, here are some specific issues to look for that would make a licence incompatible with GPLv3 (as of draft 2). * Requirements about attorney fees * Waiver of the right to trial by jury * Jurisdiction requirements (disputes must be settled in a certain country or in accordance with the laws of a certain country) Licences which are incompatible with GPLv3 (as of draft 2) for the above reasons include the MPL, CDDL, CPL, EPL, academic free license, open software license. Even Sun says so [3]: We have carefully reviewed the existing OSI approved licenses and found none of them to meet our needs, and thus have reluctantly drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 (MPL). We do appreciate the issue of license proliferation, however, and have worked hard to make the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as reusable as possible. Additionally, we have attempted to address the problems we perceived in existing open source licenses that led us to conclude that reusing those existing licenses was impractical. We chose to use the MPL as a base ... Now, the MPL has been around for a long time. It has also been known for a long time that the MPL is not GPL compatible. unproven accusations. Note that I am waiting for an explanation for the pretended problems since January 2006. Note that what I like to see is a cleanly written list of problems and a clean list of quotes from the GPL and probably the OSI rules that prove the claims. What I've read so far was a list od incorrect (modified) quotes from the GPL... As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and friends, we could carefully asume that they are void. Have I provided enough for you above? I don't get why you persist in your argument when both sides have via *public* means stated the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks. Again, Eduard refuted every single one of your claims of problems in the Debian cdrkit. Please feel free to prove him wrong (with a technical argument, not a personal attack). You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it with the fork So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims? Regards, -Roberto [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00188.html [1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ [2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses [3] http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Hi, On Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 17:28:36 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 16:40:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks. ^ Please point us to those. I couldn't find those, only technical base stuff with well knowledge from Eduard. I want to read both sides, as i am sick of the bitching of cdrecord coming up once and a while on several Debian lists, as well as in German newspaper magazines. Well, the _missing_ technical knowledge (*) from Mr. Bloch is the real cause for the problems - not a license problem. Unfortunately, most of his personal attacks are done inside private mail, so it is hard to prove their existence. Some of them however have been made in public mail, so please read the public mail archives. *) The problems with him did start about 3-4 years ago, after he asked me to include some libiconv patches from Debian in the official mkisofs release. After I did have a look at them, it turned out that these patches were expected to cause core dumps because of massive bugs. After I explained him what's wrong and asked him to first fix the problems, he started with his personal attacks but never send a fix for the technical problems. During the past few months, Mr. Bloch did learn some lessons while being forced to deal with the old cdrtools sources. He did change his mind with many topics where he did refuse to accept my statements but he still needs to learn a lot of other things. I asked you to point me to those published personal attacks and i did not ask you about your personal opinion about Mr. Bloch. Read what i wrote you, and then speak again! Greetings Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 16:40:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks. Please point us to those. I couldn't find those, only technical base stuff with well knowledge from Eduard. I want to read both sides, as i am sick of the bitching of cdrecord coming up once and a while on several Debian lists, as well as in German newspaper magazines. Well, the _missing_ technical knowledge (*) from Mr. Bloch is the real cause for the problems - not a license problem. Unfortunately, most of his personal attacks are done inside private mail, so it is hard to prove their existence. Some of them however have been made in public mail, so please read the public mail archives. *) The problems with him did start about 3-4 years ago, after he asked me to include some libiconv patches from Debian in the official mkisofs release. After I did have a look at them, it turned out that these patches were expected to cause core dumps because of massive bugs. After I explained him what's wrong and asked him to first fix the problems, he started with his personal attacks but never send a fix for the technical problems. During the past few months, Mr. Bloch did learn some lessons while being forced to deal with the old cdrtools sources. He did change his mind with many topics where he did refuse to accept my statements but he still needs to learn a lot of other things. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:40:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: This fork harms the users of Debian in at least two ways: - the fork does not work decently and thus annoyes them I am a Debian user. cdrkit certainly *does* work decently. Far better than cdrecord, which only manages to complain that I am not using an obsolete version of the Linux kernel, before spitting out some info about my SCSI devices being set up incorrectly (what SCSI devices? My system uses PATA!), followed by failure. Repeating your wrong claims does not make them true... -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
* Martin Zobel-Helas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070324 17:45]: Read what i wrote you, and then speak again! or rather not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project. I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros? Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested in an answer from me. They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out. If other distros did see a license problem, it wuld be obvious that they ask me before changing to a fork that is definitely worse than the original. Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not convinced by Mr. Bloch... this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is *not* compatible with the GPL. Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by unproven accusations. I would hardly call it misquoting: [ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ] As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and friends, we could carefully asume that they are void. Have I provided enough for you above? I don't get why you persist in your argument when both sides have via *public* means stated the exact opposite of what you are claiming. You did not provide anything relevent, sorry. I did however explain many times in the public why there is no problem. I recommend you to read this and reply again _after_ you found a way to send arguments that are based on real things that happen inside cdrtools and do not repeat global unrelated statements from other people. You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it with the fork So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims? There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway. If you are openminded enough, you may try out e.g. the latest Knoppix DVD and discover that wodim and other libscg based programs published by Mr. Bloch simply do not work at all (I did try this at Cebit last week on my laptop). The original cdrtoools however are known to work. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project. I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros? Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested in an answer from me. The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be avoided unless explicitly requested. Since you did not request one, I imagine Aurelien did not send you one. Of course, you are participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the list. They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out. If other distros did see a license problem, it wuld be obvious that they ask me before changing to a fork that is definitely worse than the original. I do not know what relationship other distros have with you. So if they have or have not contacted you, I don't know. Of course, you keep making the claim that the fork is definitely worse than the original. However, you haven't produced any actual evidence that such is the case. Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not convinced by Mr. Bloch... Wow. I am sure that Eduard would like to think that he holds so much sway and power that he was able to cow Canonical *and* Novell into including an inferior product into their distributions. However, I think that you are just making things up now. this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is *not* compatible with the GPL. Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by unproven accusations. I would hardly call it misquoting: [ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ] I see. So the opinions of Sun *and* the FSF on the GPL and CDDL are misunderstood? Who, pray tell, are we supposed to seek for a non-misunderstood opinion? Yourself? As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and friends, we could carefully asume that they are void. Have I provided enough for you above? I don't get why you persist in your argument when both sides have via *public* means stated the exact opposite of what you are claiming. You did not provide anything relevent, sorry. Only because you choose to ignore it. I did however explain many times in the public why there is no problem. So, if there is no problem, then why are you all up in arms over a fork? If there is no problem, a fork should not bother you, because nobody will use it as it is unnecessary. But I think that this is not the case and you fear becoming irrelevant. By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose to change licenses (which you are more than free to do as the owner of the code) to a license which the majority of your users see as problematic (rightly or wrongly) you are asking for many of them to seek an alternative. It appears that is what has happened here. Perhaps you should have considered your choice more carefully. I recommend you to read this and reply again _after_ you found a way to send arguments that are based on real things that happen inside cdrtools and do not repeat global unrelated statements from other people. I'm sorry, but the issue has *specifically* to do with license incompatibility. The statements that I quoted were *directly* related to that. You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it with the fork So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims? There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. Well, his claims are not so obivously wrong to quite a large number of people. If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway. I believe his *technical* claims. You have yet to make a *technical* counter-claim. However, you have engaged in quite a bit of vigorious hand waving while *avoiding* technical arguments. If you are openminded enough, you may try out e.g. the latest Knoppix DVD and discover that wodim and other libscg based programs published by Mr. Bloch simply do not work at all (I did try this at Cebit last week on my laptop). The original cdrtoools however are known to work. I don't understand what you mean. How could cdrkit or cdrtools or any other burning application work with a disc already in the drive. What my real interest is where you think the problems are with the code. Perhaps you could post a diff between your superior cdrtools and the inferior cdrkit and describe where
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On 10968 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway. As you always and only hit on Eduard - does that mean my claims aren't wrong? Or does you not answering the arguments in my mails from shortly before we did the fork simply show that you do not have anything to reply to them, as there simply isnt anything valid against them? Instead you simply told me I am a liar and still miss to apologize for it. Or - does the way you avoid to talk to me mean that you fear to lose the discussion? You know, you saw me at the Chemnitzer LinuxTage and then also at the Debian booth at Cebit. You avoided to talk to me, instead you visited the Debian booth when I went away, knowingly talking to someone who has absolutely nothing to do with cdrkit. No, I wont ever start talking to you at any event. I am simply not interested anymore in doing this. We have cdrkit and are happy with it. *WE* ignore cdrtools and do not spread FUD about it. How about you growing up and simply doing the same with cdrkit? Ignore us, future will then tell what was the better thing. cdrtools or cdrkit. Your constant whining doesn't help any side. It just destroys all the points you may have had. -- bye Joerg pasc man pasc the AMD64 camp is not helped by the list of people supporting it pasc when nerode is on your side, you know you're doing something wrong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Hi, * Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-24 20:10]: On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested in an answer from me. The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be avoided unless explicitly requested. Since you did not request one, I imagine Aurelien did not send you one. Of course, you are participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the list. C'mon, you and almost everyone who replied to this thread Cc'ed Joerg so this should not be the point. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons, gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys! pgpdFsnmn0bDA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:23:33PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote: C'mon, you and almost everyone who replied to this thread Cc'ed Joerg so this should not be the point. I (and I imagine others) have CC'd Joerg since he has done so. To me, if someone CC's people it indicates that he wants a CC himself. Now, maybe Aurelien did not see it. Or maybe he decided not to CC for whatever reason. Either way, Joerg's claim that because the mail was not addressed specifically to him, and so he cannot be expected to have seen it, is lame. He is participating in a list discussion. He should be subscribed to the list. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros? Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested in an answer from me. The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be avoided unless explicitly requested. Since you did not request one, I imagine Aurelien did not send you one. Of course, you are participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the list. If you like to ignore the nettiquette, this is your choice The nettiquette requires not to remove recipients from a list. I do not know what relationship other distros have with you. So if they have or have not contacted you, I don't know. Of course, you keep making the claim that the fork is definitely worse than the original. However, you haven't produced any actual evidence that such is the case. I did but you ignore it... Let me give again some hints on problems with Mr. Blochs fork: - dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs. - no useful DVD support. - The tools do not work at all on Knoppix There are more Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not convinced by Mr. Bloch... Wow. I am sure that Eduard would like to think that he holds so much sway and power that he was able to cow Canonical *and* Novell into including an inferior product into their distributions. However, I think that you are just making things up now. Distros who did not ask me are obviously overpowered by Mr. Bloch because they did never try to find out whether his claims are correct. I would hardly call it misquoting: [ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ] I see. So the opinions of Sun *and* the FSF on the GPL and CDDL are misunderstood? Who, pray tell, are we supposed to seek for a non-misunderstood opinion? Yourself? Are you really unable to understand the problem? It makes no sense to quote text that is not related to what's done inside cdrtools. If you like to be taken for serious, you should not quote text that only applies to non-GPL code that has been derived from GPLd code. You did not provide anything relevent, sorry. Only because you choose to ignore it. In contryry: I read it and commented it but you do not seem to understand licensing issues. By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things. Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree desaster. cdrtools changed it's license to a more free that is approved and accepted by the FROSS community and some Debian people did start an obscure campagne basec on accusations only. to change licenses (which you are more than free to do as the owner of the code) to a license which the majority of your users see as problematic (rightly or wrongly) you are asking for many of them to seek an alternative. It appears that is what has happened here. Perhaps you should have considered your choice more carefully. The majority of the users do not care about licenses and a lot of people did send congratulations for the more free license no in use. So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims? There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. Well, his claims are not so obivously wrong to quite a large number of people. If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway. I believe his *technical* claims. You have yet to make a *technical* counter-claim. However, you have engaged in quite a bit of vigorious hand waving while *avoiding* technical arguments. If you believe that he writes technical based claims, you seem to have problems with discussing things on a technical base. If you are openminded enough, you may try out e.g. the latest Knoppix DVD and discover that wodim and other libscg based programs published by Mr. Bloch simply do not work at all (I did try this at Cebit last week on my laptop). The original cdrtoools however are known to work. I don't understand what you mean. How could cdrkit or cdrtools or any other burning application work with a disc already in the drive. What my real interest is where you think the problems are with the code. Perhaps you could post a diff between your superior cdrtools and the inferior cdrkit and describe where the problems *actually* are? ??? It looks like you miss some basic knowledge on what cdrtools do and how they are used. Some people like to _read_ non-empty CDs/DVDs (either data or audio) and some people like to add new sessions multi session CDs/DVDs. Let us continue this _after_
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10968 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote: There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway. As you always and only hit on Eduard - does that mean my claims aren't wrong? Your claims are wrong as I e.g. mentioned today, when I explained why claims that asume CDDL code that has been derived from GPL code do not apply to cdrtools. Or does you not answering the arguments in my mails from shortly before we did the fork simply show that you do not have anything to reply to them, as there simply isnt anything valid against them? Instead you simply told me I am a liar and still miss to apologize for it. ??? You did not send anything valid recently and you did never show that you are interested in the truth during the past 3 years. Or - does the way you avoid to talk to me mean that you fear to lose the discussion? You know, you saw me at the Chemnitzer LinuxTage and then also at the Debian booth at Cebit. You avoided to talk to me, instead you visited the Debian booth when I went away, knowingly talking to someone who has absolutely nothing to do with cdrkit. I did try to approach you in Chemnitz and you did change your viewing direction and did run away for at least two times. You did have the chance to approach me because I would not have run away like you, but you did not. Why should I try it again in Hannover? I even did try but you did prefer not to be in the Debian booth when I did... Why should I try to talk to someone who repeatedly did prove that he is not interested in a balance? Well, I am still open to any wish for a discussion that is based on facts and not based on accusations and unproven claims. If you ever try to talk to me without prejudices and without accusations and unproven claims, I will talk to you! You need to keep in mind that I will correct you or sombody else whenever you or somebody else is spreading FUD on cdrtools. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 11:07:34AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Please forgive me for feeding the troll. No. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On 10968 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote: Or does you not answering the arguments in my mails from shortly before we did the fork simply show that you do not have anything to reply to them, as there simply isnt anything valid against them? Instead you simply told me I am a liar and still miss to apologize for it. ??? You did not send anything valid recently and you did never show that you are interested in the truth during the past 3 years. The last big thread before we forked. You simply ignored it back then and continue to do so. I did try to approach you in Chemnitz and you did change your viewing direction and did run away for at least two times. You did have the chance to approach me because I would not have run away like you, but you did not. Why should I try it again in Hannover? Right. I only saw you once when I was going to get some food. You preferred to go elsewhere... I even did try but you did prefer not to be in the Debian booth when I did... Suuure, as if I have the duty to be there 24/7. Why should I try to talk to someone who repeatedly did prove that he is not interested in a balance? Well, I am still open to any wish for a discussion that is based on facts and not based on accusations and unproven claims. If you ever try to talk to me without prejudices and without accusations and unproven claims, I will talk to you! In that case simply answer my mails from the time right before we forked. Everything from there is still unanswered by you. You simply preferred to tell me I am a liar or just deleting all of it, sending back something useless which was way offtopic. You need to keep in mind that I will correct you or sombody else whenever you or somebody else is spreading FUD on cdrtools. Funny enough, none of us is writing about cdrtools. You only always spread FUD about cdrkit. Anyway, end of topic for me, last mail here, except you really get to answer seriously to all the open points. -- bye Joerg Some NM: A developer contacts you and asks you to met for a keysign. What is your response and why? Do you like beer? When do we meet? [...] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 09:00:20PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros?
Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested
in an answer from me.
The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be
avoided unless explicitly requested. Since you did not request one, I
imagine Aurelien did not send you one. Of course, you are
participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the
list.
If you like to ignore the nettiquette, this is your choice
The nettiquette requires not to remove recipients from a list.
They are not my guidelines. I imagine that the list guidelines and code
of conduct were thouroughly vetted. However, I have not been around
long enough to know. Perhaps someone who has been around longer can say
for sure.
I do not know what relationship other distros have with you. So if they
have or have not contacted you, I don't know. Of course, you keep
making the claim that the fork is definitely worse than the original.
However, you haven't produced any actual evidence that such is the case.
I did but you ignore it... Let me give again some hints on problems with
Mr. Blochs fork:
- dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs.
Right. People keep asking you to specify *which* bugs. You provided a
few: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02703.html
Eduard's response: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02863.html
So, it looks like in your entire list, the only one that might
legitimately be considered a problem is that Debian's cdrkit might not
work correctly with deeply nested directories. That is out of your list
of 12 charges on which Debian's cdrkit has problems. I'd say that
Debian is doing an excellent job then of fixing the problems.
- no useful DVD support.
As Eduard pointed out in his response to your charges, this is not
really a problem. Debian has other tools which support DVDs just fine.
- The tools do not work at all on Knoppix
Exactly how is this Debian's problem? I don't know how if at all
Knoppix modifies cdrkit, if at all. However, I'd look at the Debian
version *in Debian* before making unbased charges against it.
There are more
Really? Like what?
Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may
safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not
convinced by Mr. Bloch...
Wow. I am sure that Eduard would like to think that he holds so much
sway and power that he was able to cow Canonical *and* Novell into
including an inferior product into their distributions. However, I
think that you are just making things up now.
Distros who did not ask me are obviously overpowered by Mr. Bloch because
they did never try to find out whether his claims are correct.
I find this really hard to believe. Do you have any evidence of this?
Or is this another of your baseless claims?
I would hardly call it misquoting:
[ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ]
I see. So the opinions of Sun *and* the FSF on the GPL and CDDL are
misunderstood? Who, pray tell, are we supposed to seek for a
non-misunderstood opinion? Yourself?
Are you really unable to understand the problem?
It makes no sense to quote text that is not related to what's done inside
cdrtools. If you like to be taken for serious, you should not quote text that
only applies to non-GPL code that has been derived from GPLd code.
Really? I fail to see how it makes any difference if the GPL code
sprang out of nothing or was derived from some other code? That is like
saying that GPL code that is someone's original creation is treated
differently than GPL code which is derived from the Public Domain. How
can that be?
You did not provide anything relevent, sorry.
Only because you choose to ignore it.
In contryry: I read it and commented it but you do not seem to understand
licensing issues.
I am struggling to see how the source of the derivation makes any
impact. Either something is GPL or is not. Either something is
GPL-compatible or it is not.
By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose
You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things.
Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less
free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute
more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree
desaster.
I don't buy it. The license change to XFree86 was committed on 13
February 2004:
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml.diff?r1=1.23r2=1.24hideattic=0
http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html
The X.Org Foundation was formed on 22 January 2004. The XFree86
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 02:08:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006: * creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence which happened to be DFSG-incompatible * rebranding of Firefox to Iceweasel due to trademark issues * rebranding of Seamonkey to Iceape due to trademark issues * rebranding of Thunderbird to Icedove due to trademark issues There must be so much more, in which case I hope you may add to this list, and if there's enough contributions, maybe a wiki page could be set up and advertised. You have your priorities wrong. A fork and three rebrandings are more like nuisances compared to for example the bug reports that Debian maintainers forwarded to upstream, without or with fixes. Sure, maybe those aren't PR-friendly, but they count, and they are the heart of our contribution IMO. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 09:00:20PM +0100, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros?
Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested
in an answer from me.
The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be
avoided unless explicitly requested. Since you did not request one, I
imagine Aurelien did not send you one. Of course, you are
participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the
list.
If you like to ignore the nettiquette, this is your choice
The nettiquette requires not to remove recipients from a list.
Seeing how you jumped on the original message to start this wonderful
useless thread, you seem to be either subscribed or have a special
interest in reading -project. There's no need to specifically Cc
messages to you.
Anyways, why don't you unsubscribe and stop watching this mailing list
instead of wasting everyone's time with your endless useless rants about
how your crap rules and how cdrkit sucks ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10968 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote: Or does you not answering the arguments in my mails from shortly before we did the fork simply show that you do not have anything to reply to them, as there simply isnt anything valid against them? Instead you simply told me I am a liar and still miss to apologize for it. ??? You did not send anything valid recently and you did never show that you are interested in the truth during the past 3 years. The last big thread before we forked. You simply ignored it back then and continue to do so. So you are still unwilling to tell me what you are interested in? I remember only a set of mails from you around March 2006, where you did express that you are unwilling to send any useful comments on the wrong claims done by Debian in January 2006. Dou you really expect an answer from ne _after_ you did make it obvious that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion? I did try to approach you in Chemnitz and you did change your viewing direction and did run away for at least two times. You did have the chance to approach me because I would not have run away like you, but you did not. Why should I try it again in Hannover? Right. I only saw you once when I was going to get some food. You preferred to go elsewhere... So this is your way of telling me that you really did run away? I _am_ always open to a fruitful discussion even with you. I am not interested to waste my time with people who repeat FUD on my projects and are not interested in helping. Note that FROSS is based on the will for cooperation, Mr. Bloch did make it obvious that he is not interested in any cooperation and you did help him to spread FUD against me and my projects. You continue to spread such FUD (e.g. inside the file FORK). If do not remove the FUD starting from the 3rd paragraph in this file, it is obvious that you are still not interested in a 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not have the unlimited time to waste with useless speudo discussions. I am sorry, but this will be the last response to you unless you start to open your mind to the reality. For the same reason. this reply is shortened. - dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs. Right. People keep asking you to specify *which* bugs. You provided a few: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02703.html Eduard's response: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02863.html Are void. I would hardly call it misquoting: [ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ] I see. So the opinions of Sun *and* the FSF on the GPL and CDDL are misunderstood? Who, pray tell, are we supposed to seek for a non-misunderstood opinion? Yourself? Are you really unable to understand the problem? It makes no sense to quote text that is not related to what's done inside cdrtools. If you like to be taken for serious, you should not quote text that only applies to non-GPL code that has been derived from GPLd code. Really? I fail to see how it makes any difference if the GPL code sprang out of nothing or was derived from some other code? That is like saying that GPL code that is someone's original creation is treated differently than GPL code which is derived from the Public Domain. How can that be? The GPL is known to be asymmetric (which is a problem) and even the founder of Debian does not follow your strange ideas on interpreting the GPL. http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278 (see 3rd paragraph) By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things. Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree desaster. I don't buy it. The license change to XFree86 was committed on 13 February 2004: http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml.diff?r1=1.23r2=1.24hideattic=0 http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html The X.Org Foundation was formed on 22 January 2004. The XFree86 disaster started long before either of those events. You still ignore facts! I was quoting one of the leading X.org members who is obviously better informed than you. Do you really believe that it was posible to obtain a single letter top level domain name in 2004? X.org has been founded around 1987. Too much FUD from you, I need to stop replying here 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 05:13:04PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: They are not my guidelines. I imagine that the list guidelines and code of conduct were thouroughly vetted. However, I have not been around long enough to know. Perhaps someone who has been around longer can say for sure. They were not, and at least one person thinks that they are a giant mistake. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not have the unlimited time to waste with useless speudo discussions. I am sorry, but this will be the last response to you unless you start to open your mind to the reality. For the same reason. this reply is shortened. - dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs. Right. People keep asking you to specify *which* bugs. You provided a few: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02703.html Eduard's response: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02863.html Are void. How so? Really? I fail to see how it makes any difference if the GPL code sprang out of nothing or was derived from some other code? That is like saying that GPL code that is someone's original creation is treated differently than GPL code which is derived from the Public Domain. How can that be? The GPL is known to be asymmetric (which is a problem) and even the founder of Debian does not follow your strange ideas on interpreting the GPL. http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278 (see 3rd paragraph) Umm, Ian Murdock had a problem with the overreaction since it involved two distinct and separate pieces of software (dpkg and libc). With cdrtools, it is *one* piece of software. In fact the issue is not even that you can't do what you have. As the copyright holder, you can do as you please. It is just that your choice has made it impossible for others to legally redistribute. By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things. Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree desaster. I don't buy it. The license change to XFree86 was committed on 13 February 2004: http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml.diff?r1=1.23r2=1.24hideattic=0 http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html The X.Org Foundation was formed on 22 January 2004. The XFree86 disaster started long before either of those events. You still ignore facts! What facts? I was quoting one of the leading X.org members who is obviously better informed than you. Really? Who? Where is the press release or public statement containing that quote? Do you really believe that it was posible to obtain a single letter top level domain name in 2004? No. I said the X.Org *Foundation* was formed in 2004: In early 2004 various people from X.Org and freedesktop.org formed the X.Org Foundation, and the Open Group gave it control of the x.org domain name. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL is known to be asymmetric (which is a problem) and even the founder of Debian does not follow your strange ideas on interpreting the GPL. http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278 (see 3rd paragraph) Umm, Ian Murdock had a problem with the overreaction since it involved two distinct and separate pieces of software (dpkg and libc). With cdrtools, it is *one* piece of software. In fact the issue is not even that you can't do what you have. As the copyright holder, you can do as you please. It is just that your choice has made it impossible for others to legally redistribute. You are still ignoring facts Cdrtools is a collection of several projects. You still ignore facts! What facts? I was quoting one of the leading X.org members who is obviously better informed than you. Really? Who? Where is the press release or public statement containing that quote? I do not have the time to find this out for you you would need to find out yourself which Xorg person did talk on a TU-Berlin event in 2004. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Hi, On Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 17:44:53 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi, I asked you to point me to those published personal attacks and i did not ask you about your personal opinion about Mr. Bloch. Read what i wrote you, and then speak again! As Mr. Schilling answered all the other mails in this thread but didn't answer to this one, and was not able to point me to any published mails by Mr. Bloch with personal attacks to Mr Schilling, we now conclude that there is no published personal attacks from Mr. Bloch. Therefore we also conclude, Mr. Schilling seem to be the liar, who is spreading lies about Mr. Bloch, who never seemed to have published any personal attacks attacks to Mr. Schilling. End of discussion from my side here. Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I asked you to point me to those published personal attacks and i did not ask you about your personal opinion about Mr. Bloch. Read what i wrote you, and then speak again! As Mr. Schilling answered all the other mails in this thread but didn't answer to this one, and was not able to point me to any published mails by Mr. Bloch with personal attacks to Mr Schilling, we now conclude that there is no published personal attacks from Mr. Bloch. I usually do not answer to trolls...but... Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related personal atacks. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Hi, On Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:24:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I asked you to point me to those published personal attacks and i did not ask you about your personal opinion about Mr. Bloch. Read what i wrote you, and then speak again! As Mr. Schilling answered all the other mails in this thread but didn't answer to this one, and was not able to point me to any published mails by Mr. Bloch with personal attacks to Mr Schilling, we now conclude that there is no published personal attacks from Mr. Bloch. I usually do not answer to trolls...but... Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related personal atacks. I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of them, just telling me look in the archive. So you seem not to be able to give me any concrete pointer. So whom should i trust now? You? Mr. Bloch? There was a reason why i asked for concrete pointers. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 03:33:40AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi, On Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:24:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Read the Debian mailing list archives and you will find some of the related personal atacks. I asked for references, but you seem not to be able to give me ANY of them, just telling me look in the archive. So you seem not to be able to give me any concrete pointer. So whom should i trust now? You? Mr. Bloch? There was a reason why i asked for concrete pointers. Well, pretty much every time I have asked for a reference or a technical argument of some sort, the response is go find it yourself or go figure it out yourself (or words to that effect). You should not be surprised. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
