Re: xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?
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?
> - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> distributed.
Errr, in what way?
> - 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.
> 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 blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who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Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you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...
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Ho hum,
--
Brett Parker
Everything in this mail is my opinion. So there.
Reply to: