Re: xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?
Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 09:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
> > >Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
> > >or something (apparently).
> > >So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> > >or wodim?
> > You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
> > and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
> You're the one who distributes a legally dubious mixture of code covered
> by GPLv2 and CDDL.
There is no "dubious" mixture..... even the FSF admits that GPLd code may use
CDDLd libraries from other projects (as done inside cdrtools which is a
collection of sevreral independent projects). The original software had a
full in depth legal review from the Sun legal department and Sun-legal did
not find any problem. Distributions that are interested in shipping working
legal software ship the original software.
The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
- The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
- The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
- 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.
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blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who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.
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:
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.
What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
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.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily