Re: xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?
On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distributed.
> >
> > Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> > half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
> > sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>
> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
> Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
> that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further
spreading of FUD?
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> > > distributed.
> >
> > Errr, in what way?
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
See above.
> >
> > > - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> > > initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> > > to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> > > symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> > > they use the original software.
> >
> > As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> > of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> > one notices.
>
> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
> CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
> against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
> none of the reports applies to the original software.
Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd
burning software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird
that you would be so biased on that isn't it?
Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
libburn projects? Apparently not everyone that is interesting in working
CD/DVD creation wants to use your software - apparently not everyone in
the world agrees with your view point. Now, kindly drop the FUD
spreading that your software is the only working software in the world
(there are plenty, for example, of free CD/DVD creation tools for the
Windows operating system, I suppose you'll claim all of those are using
your code? Yeah. Right.).
I'm very interested in *working* CD/DVD creation, and I've been very
happy with cdrkit - if you're telling me that the CDs/DVDs that I have
created (and used) with wodim don't work, then I'm *amazed*!
> > > If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> > > blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> > > ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> > > who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> > > unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> > > advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> > > interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
> >
> > Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
> > stopping a fork at any later version...
>
> The original software did not introduce licensing issues. Please do not spread
> FUD. The original code had a full legal review by the Sun legal department.
> The fork however is undistributable because some people ignored the rules from
> GPL and Copyright law.
Which rules? The author ignored the GPL by adding invariant sections,
certainly. Well done.
> > > If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> > > ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> > > showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> > > original software from:
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> >
> > The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.
>
> The quality of the original software is much better than the quality of the
> fork.
That is, of course, purely your opinion.
> The minimal requirements for a "stable release" is that the software does not
> have known bugs at release time. Using this rule, there never has been _any_
> release from the fork while at the same time there have been 50 stable releases
> from the orignal software.
Ahh - but unknown bugs are fine... and I'd suggest that if you've done
50 releases since then, then you've had plenty of unknown bugs on the
way - using this metric, I don't believe that you've ever made a stable
release.
> > > fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> > > bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
> >
> > So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
> > you still have bugs. Well done.
>
> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
> unmodified source.
But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
*believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
bug reports with you...
> > > What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> > > disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
> >
> > Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
> > impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
> > yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
> > Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
> > don't qualify as a user. Sorry.
>
> Don't you read the bug reports? You seem to have missed the contact to the
> debian users.....
>
> > > If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> > > demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> > > person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> > > it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> > > credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
> >
> > Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
> > changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
> > http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
> > I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
> > incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.
>
> Single character spelling changes cannot count as active development.
>
> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?
I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking
at the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's
not a whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed
now that lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.
> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.
Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.
We are interested in our users, however, and as such that is why the
fork was created.
> Please note: I believe that there is no resaon for Debian to continue to
> support the person "Eduard Bloch". With his activities on cdrtools, he did harm
> the credibilty of Debian. As this person is no longer active since nearly two
> years, it should be the right time to stop arguing based on his attacks.
I think you'll find the current leader and release manager (and, infact,
DD in charge of) cdrkit is Joerg Jaspert - as can be clearly seen at the
bottom of www.cdrkit.org.
> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there is
> mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently work for
> Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform yourself based
> on neutral information instead of the attacks from this person. The next step
> would be to delete the incorrect claims and the slander from the Debian servers
> that have been written by this person.
We're not focusing on the "attacks" from that person - what we focus on
is being able to modify the source in appropriate ways - your changes to
the source (i.e. declaring parts of it unmodifiable, going against the
GPL) prevented us from actually being able to do our job.
> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.
> compile it and install it (the latter as root) by calling "make install".
> Then take the Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat buglist and test all the bugs against
> the original software. You will find that all documented problem disappear once
> you are using the original software (note that you may need to withdraw several
> changes to other software that have been introduced to let them call cdrkit
> instead of the original software).
Marvellous - unpackaged, non-security supported software - just what we
all *love* on our systems.
You'll find that I don't suffer from the "documented problems" as you
put them to start off with, so why should I risk using something else
that may or may not work, and might just install a root kit instead.
"Thanks",
--
Brett Parker
Reply to: