Re: writing speed issue with dvd+rw-tools
Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Jon Wilson <email@example.com>
If I want to burn more than 1G, I have to get a time limted, usage
restricted key from you. It's your right to license it like this. But I
have given you no indication whether my use will comply with these
restrictions, so you are wrong to assume that I am able to do so (or
that I am happy to do so, but that's a seperate issue).
WRONG -> RTFM.... ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/README
"cdrecord-ProDVD is now free for private non-commercial purposes too."
It is my understanding that it is therefor non-free (as in beer) for use
in a commercial environment. Although the DVD writer in question is in
my home PC, we have them at work in Linux machines too. I would like to
learn how to use *one* piece of software and use it legally in both
My employers (who are incidently very committed to open source software)
would prefer if I could use the free ("beer") solution, if it works.
If I have misunderstood your licensing terms, then I apologise and
respectfully suggest you clarify the README. A good start would be to
put the licensing terms into a seperate file, as is common with much
Looks like you like to stay uninformed. Why then do you write to this
Why do you feel have to be rude to me, instead of shutting the fuck up?
Simple: you did start being very rude to me.
No Jeorg, I explained why I would rather not spend my precious time
using your software. This isn't being rude to you. It is saying why I
choose not to be involved with something you do. There is a difference.
If I was to improperly criticise the functionality of the software, or
your abilities, then that would be rude. But this is not what I did; I
just exercised my right to decline your licensing terms.
It looks like you are a
typical person who likes to grab what he may get for free but don't like
to give anything back.....think about this.
It's not about whether I feel obliged to "give anything back" to you for
something I have "grabbed". If you perceive things like this, then I
suggest you consider not licensing your other software under the GPL, as
you are clearly missing the point.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and anthropology will
tell you that people do things because of the benefit to themselves.
This benefit is often indirect, such as keeping ones peers happy, and
not getting abused.
If I work[*] on dvd+rw-tools (for example), I gain knowledge about
software that I can use both at work and at home, without restriction.
The project appears to be run by someone who accepts user patches, so I
gain quick fixes, and my peers (other users) gain the use of any patches
or documentation I submit. If the maintainer disappears or can't be
bothered, I gain the right to use the code anyway, and so do my
employers (which could be important if they have committed to using the
software in a production environment).
If I work[*] on your project I gain none of these things. If my
experience with other closed source projects is an indication, all I
gain is the urge to bash my head against a brick wall at some point in
the future. This isn't meant to be a personal criticism of you, just an
explanation of a choice I have made in relation to a licensing choice
you have made.
[*] I define "work" to be anything that uses up my time, such as
examining code, running and submitting test information, writing
patches, documentation, etc.
Apologies to "cdwrite" users for drifting a little off topic! But I
think you'll agree I have the right to a little self defense when abused
on a public list. I won't trouble you with any more replies to Herr
Jon (who's glass seems to be at least half full today)