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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
**
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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]
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)
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
, 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
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
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* 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
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* 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
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
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
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
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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)
57 matches
Mail list logo
