cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
Good day I am quite new to the devel mailing list, so please bear with me. Recently, I've had a lot of trouble with wodim -- failed burns, refuses to blank a CD-RW until I have already done so with cdrecord from cdrtools. It seems that I'm far from being alone. My initial investigations (prior to most of my issues with wodim) into the cdrkit vs cdrtools debacle left me feeling that Mr Schilling was just being plain rude, and that the Debian guys had done a reasonable thing with the cdrkit fork. Subsequent to the numerous problems that I've had, and the resolution coming in the form of installing the latest cdrtools from schily, wherafter wodim on the same drive and media suddenly behaved has lead me to question exactly why the official cdrtools are omitted from the repository -- at least, from the non-free section, if the licensing (which I have to admit I haven't examined in-depth, but it probably wouldn't make a difference since I don't speak fluent lawyer) is an issue. One of the reasons I shifted from Debian to Ubuntu was the fact that Ubuntu made an effort to service the best interests of the userbase, even if it meant including non-free content (sometimes in an optional repository). Shining examples of how the user has benefitted have come in the form of NVIDIA/ATI binary blob redistribution (which has been an absolute blessing: when I had an ATI card, the initial driver install was clean but susequent installs caused all 3d functions to break -- a problem that took me at least a month of quake-free computing to rectify) as well as the Firefox artwork. Where possible, free alternatives are supplied (such as the nv driver and iceweasel). I whole-heartedly support both schools of thought, though I tend towards Linus' approach that the BEST solution is always better, even if it's not necessarily totally free. The long and the short of it is my question to the mailing list that if Ubuntu already makes better, non-free alternatives available to the user base, why isn't there an official package for cdrtools, most notably for the people like me who have had issues with wodim? I'm in the fortunate position of being a geek, so finding the cdrtools source, compiling and installing weren't an issue. But Ubuntu is Linux for human beings -- the users who benefit most from the great work on Ubuntu are the ones who wouldn't be able to resolve the wodim issue. The issue of cdrkit vs cdrtools doesn't seem to be all that different from the issue of opensource and proprietary video drivers -- but perhaps I'm just missing something fundamental here? If I'm not, then why are they not treated the same? To add insult to injury, because I can't replicate the problem easily, I can't even supply more debugging information for the trouble ticket that I registered (as yet, though I will if I ever do get to replicate the problem). -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Truth doesn't cease to be just because you don't agree with it. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:17:16PM +0200, Davyd McColl wrote: My initial investigations (prior to most of my issues with wodim) into the cdrkit vs cdrtools debacle left me feeling that Mr Schilling was just being plain rude, and that the Debian guys had done a reasonable thing with the cdrkit fork. Subsequent to the numerous problems that I've had, and the resolution coming in the form of installing the latest cdrtools from schily, wherafter wodim on the same drive and media suddenly behaved has lead me to question exactly why the official cdrtools are omitted from the repository -- at least, from the non-free section, if the licensing (which I have to admit I haven't examined in-depth, but it probably wouldn't make a difference since I don't speak fluent lawyer) is an issue. The reason it's not in non-free (i.e. multiverse, in Ubuntu), is that distributing it is currently believed to be a contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL. When we believe that something is a violation of civil law to redistribute, that means that we can't put it *anywhere* in the archive, not even multiverse. The multiverse component is for things that are legal to redistribute, but just not under a free licence. The Ubuntu Technical Board is already making efforts to work with Jörg Schilling to resolve the licensing concerns, although it has been a somewhat protracted process. One of the reasons I shifted from Debian to Ubuntu was the fact that Ubuntu made an effort to service the best interests of the userbase, even if it meant including non-free content (sometimes in an optional repository). Indeed - but only when we believe that we can do so legally. Regards, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
The reason it's not in non-free (i.e. multiverse, in Ubuntu), is that distributing it is currently believed to be a contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL. When we believe that something is a violation of civil law to I'm not really taking sides here since I don't have enough information, but out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL.? Do you mean that the actual code which has been released under the GPL contravenes the interests of the copyright holders? Perhaps the copyright to some technology re DVD structures is stopping it from being distributed? Similar to what libdvdcss2 provides to play encrypted dvds and for the same reason isn't in the repos but need to be installed using an awkward script? Or, do you mean that there is an issue how the GPL'd code is being distributed, or who owns it? How come other applications can implement the technology to burn dvds without legal issues, like k3b or brasero, but cdrtools can't? Many thanks, Alex -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
On Wed, January 14, 2009 7:08 am, Odysseus Flappington wrote: The reason it's not in non-free (i.e. multiverse, in Ubuntu), is that distributing it is currently believed to be a contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL. When we believe that something is a violation of civil law to I'm not really taking sides here since I don't have enough information, but out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL.? Do you mean that the actual code which has been released under the GPL contravenes the interests of the copyright holders? Perhaps the copyright to some technology re DVD structures is stopping it from being distributed? Similar to what libdvdcss2 provides to play encrypted dvds and for the same reason isn't in the repos but need to be installed using an awkward script? Or, do you mean that there is an issue how the GPL'd code is being distributed, or who owns it? How come other applications can implement the technology to burn dvds without legal issues, like k3b or brasero, but cdrtools can't? It means that Schilling is a disagreeable person and does not approve of the ways cdrecord has been modified. He eventually changed the licensing to prevent certain modifications, so there was a fork. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
On Wed, January 14, 2009 7:21 am, Jason Crain wrote: On Wed, January 14, 2009 7:08 am, Odysseus Flappington wrote: The reason it's not in non-free (i.e. multiverse, in Ubuntu), is that distributing it is currently believed to be a contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL. When we believe that something is a violation of civil law to I'm not really taking sides here since I don't have enough information, but out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL.? It means that Schilling is a disagreeable person and does not approve of the ways cdrecord has been modified. He eventually changed the licensing to prevent certain modifications, so there was a fork. Sorry, I should really read the entire thread. cdrecord requires a CDDL licensed build system, which is incompatible with the GPL licensed code. With the license incompatibilities it cannot be redistributed at all, not even in non-free. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cdrtools vs cdrkit: flogging the dead horse
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:08:30PM +, Odysseus Flappington wrote: Colin Watson wrote: The reason it's not in non-free (i.e. multiverse, in Ubuntu), is that distributing it is currently believed to be a contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL. When we believe that something is a violation of civil law to I'm not really taking sides here since I don't have enough information, but out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say contravention of the copyright interests of the owners of the elements licensed under the GPL.? Jason's second post (regarding the CDDL) accurately describes what I meant. It is not my intention to rehash the argument here, and I really don't want to get into an extended argument about copyright law, the GPL, and/or the CDDL; I also don't think it will be helpful to jump in on the negotiation in progress. Some of my colleagues have worked with the Software Freedom Law Center to offer a licence modification which we believe would address the incompatibility, but at the moment we can only play a waiting game. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
