Joerg Schilling wrote:
> You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called "GPL" and not
> "GPL FAQ", so the quoting you mention do not apply.
The FAQ is the legal interpretation of the GPL given by the FSF, who are the
folks who wrote the license, so why would you trust them less than
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Libburn is based on a wrong asumption: libburn only works partly on Linux
in non-root mode
Actually, burning as non-root works just fine on GNU/Linux.
and the vast majority of other OS needs root permissions to burn.
Those O
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called "GPL" and not
"GPL FAQ", so the quoting you mention do not apply.
The FAQ is the legal interpretation of the GPL given by the FSF, who are the
folks who wrote the lice
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, King InuYasha wrote:
GPLv2: End of Section 3, middle of the paragraph right after clause 3c.GPLv3:
Explicit separate definition in Section 1.
GPLv2 Quote:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Libburn is based on a wrong asumption: libburn only works partly on Linux
> in non-root mode
Actually, burning as non-root works just fine on GNU/Linux.
> and the vast majority of other OS needs root permissions to burn.
Those OSes are broken and need to be fixed.
> Ins
GPLv2: End of Section 3, middle of the paragraph right after clause 3c.
GPLv3: Explicit separate definition in Section 1.
GPLv2 Quote:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source
King InuYasha wrote:
> While it is true that the GPL permits linking to CDDL libraries, that is
> only in the case if the library is a "system library," which is a library
> that is NECESSARY for working on a particular OS. This is usually how it is
Please show me the exact place in the GPL text
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:58 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > The conclusion of all lawyers I did talk to, is that there is no legal
> > problem
> > with original source.
>
> There is no problem with the **source**, but the binary results most
> probably cannot be distri
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Joerg Schilling <
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there
> > are no "known legal problems" that anyone can see. The proper reporting
> > method is bugzilla.redha
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:43 +0100, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> The quality of the content of your Messages sometimes extremly differs
> from your behavior, your way how you tell it. Perhaps it is me (as a
> woman) who is very sensitive in that case.
Josephine,
be reassured, it's definitely not y
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:58 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> The conclusion of all lawyers I did talk to, is that there is no legal
> problem
> with original source.
There is no problem with the **source**, but the binary results most
probably cannot be distributed, because they combine in a si
Chris Adams wrote:
> You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there
> are no "known legal problems" that anyone can see. The proper reporting
> method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them?
It seems that you did never check this as otherwise yo
On 11/03/2009 09:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling said:
>> -Redhat continues to distribute "cdrkit" although there are
>> known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that
>> once about this fact.
>
> it is "Red Hat", not "Redhat" (and
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling said:
> - Redhat continues to distribute "cdrkit" although there are
> known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that
> once about this fact.
it is "Red Hat", not "Redhat" (and this is Fedora).
You have refused to cite specif
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote:
> Since nothing has changed, please consider this thread closed. Continued
> postings will be handled under the moderation policies.
So let us conclude:
- Redhat continues to distribute "cdrkit" although there are
known legal problems with it and Red
2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling :
> Fortunately, you are of limited relevance and other people did not behave
> hostile but friendly ;-)
Sorry Joerg,
but Imho it isn't friendly to come to a booth, thump the table and
say: "Remove illegal software from fedora distribution, mature at the
end of the year,
On 11/03/2009 09:13 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a):
>> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL
>> is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
>> simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license
On 11/03/2009 03:08 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling:
Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
It seems that you have not been there.
I was there and I was shocked about your behavior.
Fortunately, you are of limited relevance
Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a):
> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL
> is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
> simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it?
You must be new here :)
Concerning legal
Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> 2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling :
> > Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> > It seems that you have not been there.
> I was there and I was shocked about your behavior.
Fortunately, you are of limited relevance and other people did not behave
hostile but friendly ;-)
Jör
2009/11/3 Joerg Schilling :
> if there legal department was wrong. I still do not understand why Companies
> like Redhat do not siply ask their lawyers for legal assistence. If they did,
> they would have better advise about cdrtools.
Just a small thing that drives me crazy. The company name is "R
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the
> > original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including
> > people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could
> > confirm a problem. As
Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Ok, putting the ad personam arguments aside, there are two important facts:
> - cdrecord is still under active development, but there might be a
> problem with distributability (Sun lawyers say there is not, but I guess
There is no problem with distributibility as Sun w
Mat??j Cepl wrote:
> Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> > I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds
> > like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still
> > buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe
> > growisof
2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling :
> Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> It seems that you have not been there.
I was there and I was shocked about your behavior.
--
Josephine "Fine" Tannhäuser
2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/
Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> 2009/11/3 Conrad Meyer
>
> > In this case, upstream (wodim) is a fork of Joerg Schilling's project.
> > Wodim
> > was forked from cdrecord because Joerg is crazy. Joerg likes to call wodim
> > "the broken fork" and cdrecord "the original software".
> >
> He visited
King InuYasha wrote:
> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is
> supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply
> ask the original creator to kindly dual license it?
First, it is definitely wrong that the CDDL was made incompatible
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the
> original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including
> people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could
> confirm a problem. As there are no valid legal argume
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> So, while waiting for libburn to improve, we could either take over
> cdrkit development, or do a(nother) legal review of cdrecord. It seems
> that the latter should be simpler, given that it's a one-time effort.
>
Already done around June:
W dniu 03.11.2009 11:37, Matěj Cepl pisze:
> Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
>> I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds
>> like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still
>> buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program
Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds
> like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still
> buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe
> growisofs).
Yes, wodim is perfect. Joe
Julian Sikorski wrote:
> > On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
> >> On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>> That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
> >>> vacuous truth.
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
>
King InuYasha wrote:
> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is
> supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
> simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it?
We did, many times. He refuses to acknowledge there's any problem a
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > The person from the GNOME project just verified that he attacks people who
> > are
> > helpful. He does not seem to be important.
>
> The person being Olav Vitters, one of the GNOME bugmasters, and that was
> at my request, after you polluted the GNOME Bugzilla with ra
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Looks like another thread going the wrong way.
>
> I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds
> like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still
> buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe
> growisofs)
2009/11/3 Conrad Meyer
> In this case, upstream (wodim) is a fork of Joerg Schilling's project.
> Wodim
> was forked from cdrecord because Joerg is crazy. Joerg likes to call wodim
> "the broken fork" and cdrecord "the original software".
>
He visited all the booths of linux distributions at "Che
On Monday 02 November 2009 05:55:49 pm King InuYasha wrote:
> What is going on here? I thought Fedora only shipped upstream code? What's
> all this business about having broken forks and licensing issues?
>
> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is
> supposed to
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 02:06 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 01:21 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME
> > > Bugzilla?
> >
> > Well, there are always some bad guys who don't lik
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 01:21 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME
> > Bugzilla?
>
> Well, there are always some bad guys who don't like to see people who help
> users.
>
> The person from the GNOME projec
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Joerg Schilling <
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
> >vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive
> >upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if up
W dniu 03.11.2009 00:19, Tom "spot" Callaway pisze:
> On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
>> On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
>>> vacuous truth.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It is cdrkit that is undistributable as it is cdrkit that in conflict with
> the Copyright law and the GPL.
Maybe under your reality distortion field. In the rest of the world, that's
just not true.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-li
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> why Redhat started to distribute the proken fork instead of the original
> software.
The only thing that's "proken" (sic) is your spelling.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME
> Bugzilla?
Well, there are always some bad guys who don't like to see people who help
users.
The person from the GNOME project just verified that he attacks people who are
helpful. He does not seem to
Hey Joerg,
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 00:21 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
> >browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
>
> >"wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
> >expect to see
>That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
>vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive
>upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if upstream stays idle.
Note that is is just the other way:
It is cdrkit that is undistributable as it i
>On the other hand trying to build Jörg's stuff isn't easy on Fedora. And
>might not even work as he likes to use a interface that was depreciated
>a while back for talking to the cd/dvd drives.
I would guess that you are not informed correctly.
My software easily compiles on more than 30 differe
>I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
>browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
>"wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
>expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
>continues to distribute wodim instea
On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
>> vacuous truth.
>
> Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
> there another reason ? Last I checked, only
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 21:47:47 +0100,
Denis Leroy wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
> >vacuous truth.
>
> Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or
> was there another reason ? L
On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
vacuous truth.
Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that
and the rest of cdrecor
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:16 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal:
>> > Ankur Sinha wrote:
>> >> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
>> >> expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long a
On 11/02/2009 03:19 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Jörg seems to be watching for bug reports related to wodim and comments
on them whenever someone new adds something.
Same applies to brasero and cdrdao.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:16 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal:
> > Ankur Sinha wrote:
> >> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
> >> expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
> >> continues to distribute wodim instead of the
W dniu 02.11.2009 18:16, Michal Schmidt pisze:
> Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal:
>> Ankur Sinha wrote:
>>> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
>>> expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
>>> continues to distribute wodim instead of the original softw
Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal:
Ankur Sinha wrote:
"wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software."
Can someone please clear this up?
It's just the usua
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
> expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
> continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software."
>
> Can someone please clear this up?
It's just the usual FUD from Jörg Schilling. Ignore it
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 15:59:07 +0530,
Ankur Sinha wrote:
> hi,
>
> I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
> browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
>
> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
> expect to see an
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 12:15 +0100, Roman Rakus wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 11:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> > Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit :
> >
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
> >> browsing through another bug[2] on w
On 11/02/2009 11:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit :
hi,
I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
"wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6
Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit :
>
> hi,
>
> I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
> browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
>
> "wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
> expect to see any fixes
hi,
I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While
browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3].
"wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't
expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat
continues to distribute wodim instea
62 matches
Mail list logo
