[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006

Please forgive me for feeding the troll. 

On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >Distors are often viewed as mere packagers, but they tend to drive
> >upstream development in variety of ways. Here's just a few of Debian's
> >contributions to the world of FLOSS during 2006:
> >* creation of cdrkit, a fork of cdrtools, due to a change of licence
> >which happened to be DFSG-incompatible
> You are not talking about a notable contribution but about a notable
> damage to FLOSS caused by people who are unwilling to cooperate in a useful 
> way. 
Joerg, as a piece of friendly advice, I think it would be wise to drop
it.  You continue to do your reputation harm by going around making this
claim.  Does Debian's fork somehow harm you?  Does it harm your
software?  The question to both of those is probably "no".  Why not just
ignore it?

> Note that there was a licence change with cdrtools but this was a change 
> towards more freedom and the current official cdrtools are of course still
> accepted free software and do not have any license problem.
The question is not about free vs non-free.  It is a question of
compatibility.  For example, the original (4-clause) BSD license is
arguably more free than the GPL (depending on whether you look from the
perspective of developer or the user).  However, it is still
incompatible with the GPL.  Nobody argues this point.  I believe that
this point has been explained to you multiple times.  Additionally, both
the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is
*not* compatible with the GPL.

> Note that the license change was definitely not the reason for the fork (the 
> fork would have been done in a different way if the license change was the 
> reason). The reason for the change rather was the unability/unwillingness
> of Mr. Eduard Bloch in cooperating. You need to blame him for causing damage
> to Debian users...
Of course, you seem to continue with the personal attacks, so it is
quite obvious that you care little, if at all, for the technical/legal
aspects of the situation.

> If you like to vote for _useful_ contributions, the unneeded fork named
> "cdrkit" is not the right choice. Note that while the original software 
> does include a lot of enhancements and usability emendations since the last 
> year, there have been only speudo changes and new bugs in the Debian fork.
I believe that Eduard already refuted this argument, pointing out that
many of the "changes" were just cosmetic and that many of the "problems"
you claimed existed in the Debian version were not problems or were not
relevant to Debian.  In fact, here is Eduard's reply:


Of course, you never did reply to his counter-claim, which makes me
think that he was right and you were wrong.  In fact, nearly everything
that you have said on Debian lists in relation to this matter strikes as
angry hand waving and nothing more.

> If you do not like to suffer from the problems that have been introduced in the
> fork, just use the free original software from:
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
Again, Eduard refuted every single one of your claims of "problems" in
the Debian cdrkit.  Please feel free to prove him wrong (with a
technical argument, not a personal attack).



Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: