Re: Bug#181028: cdrecord: promotes non-free software
> | URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
> > Note, this is not "fixing" SILO, since SILO is not broken. It uses the
> No, it is not broken, it just ignores Sun's conventions and implements a
> different boot sequence.
No, it uses the exact sequence that Sun defines, else it would not boot.
What the SILO patch does would be the same as using the standard sparc
boot option in mkisofs and then patching the boot sector after the iso
is created with the sector of the second.b file.
> > correct booting procedure, else the CD's would not boot. It's just that
> > SILO requires that the first stage boot loader know the sector of the
> > second stage boot loader.
> As said, JS' arguments do sound better, and the descrition in
> mkisofs(8) too.
No, it sounds like a rant.
> > after they release it. It is after all free software - the very core of
> > which means it is open to changes outside the author's control.
> And you are aware of the number of upstream authors that are not happy
> with every distributor that modifies their software and release it in
> modified form with the name of the author in the subject? Neccessary
> modifications (like changes on the build system to get rid of non-PIC
> code in libs) are okay, visible changes should not be done behind
> upstream's back.
Technical changes I can understand. Advertising non-free software in
free software makes no sense. Removing that clause does not remove any
Let me ask you this, would JS accept an mmc_mdvd patch to cdrtools?
Probably not, since it dumps his money making non-free software. If he
would accept such a patch, I would not complain. That's the whole reason
that dvdrecord came about.
Intentionally leaving a bit of software less functional and advertising
a non-free version for cost with that functionality is no better than
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/