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

Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006

On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> > > -	the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to 
> > > 	find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts
> > > 	causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project.
> > > 
> > I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]?  What about the other distros?
> ???? Mail not addressed to me is send py people who are not interested
> in an answer from me.
The Code of Conduct for the Debian lists indicates that CCs are to be
avoided unless explicitly requested.  Since you did not request one, I
imagine Aurelien did not send you one.  Of course, you are
participicating in list discussion and so should be subscribed to the

> > They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out.
> If other distros did see a license problem, it wuld be obvious that they ask me
> before changing to a fork that is definitely worse than the original.

I do not know what relationship other distros have with you.  So if they
have or have not contacted you, I don't know.  Of course, you keep
making the claim that the fork is definitely worse than the original.
However, you haven't produced any actual evidence that such is the case.

> Not a single mail from another distro has been send to me, so we may 
> safely asume that other distros have just been overpowered but not
> convinced by Mr. Bloch...
Wow.  I am sure that Eduard would like to think that he holds so much
sway and power that he was able to cow Canonical *and* Novell into
including an "inferior" product into their distributions.  However, I
think that you are just making things up now.

> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by
> > > unproven accusations.
> > > 
> >
> > I would hardly call it misquoting:
> [ missunderstood text removed, see my other mail ]
I see.  So the opinions of Sun *and* the FSF on the GPL and CDDL are
misunderstood?  Who, pray tell, are we supposed to seek for a
non-misunderstood opinion?  Yourself?

> > > As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and "friends",
> > > we could carefully asume that they are void.
> > > 
> > Have I provided enough for you above?  I don't get why you persist in
> > your argument when both sides have via *public* means stated the exact
> > opposite of what you are claiming.
> You did not provide anything relevent, sorry.
Only because you choose to ignore it.

> I did however explain many times in the public why there is no problem.

So, if there is no problem, then why are you all up in arms over a fork?
If there is no problem, a fork should not bother you, because nobody
will use it as it is unnecessary.  But I think that this is not the case
and you fear becoming irrelevant.

By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco?  If you choose
to change licenses (which you are more than free to do as the owner of
the code) to a license which the majority of your users see as
problematic (rightly or wrongly) you are asking for many of them to seek
an alternative.  It appears that is what has happened here.  Perhaps you
should have considered your choice more carefully.

> I recommend you to read this and reply again _after_ you found a way to send 
> arguments that are based on real things that happen inside cdrtools and do not
> repeat global unrelated statements from other people.
I'm sorry, but the issue has *specifically* to do with license
incompatibility.  The statements that I quoted were *directly* related
to that.

> > > You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims
> > > from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it
> > > with the fork.... 
> > > 
> > So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims?
> There is no need to refute obviously wrong claims from Mr. Bloch. 

Well, his claims are not so "obivously wrong" to quite a large number of

> If you believe his wrong claims, it seems that I cannot help you anyway.

I believe his *technical* claims.  You have yet to make a *technical*
counter-claim.  However, you have engaged in quite a bit of vigorious
hand waving while *avoiding* technical arguments.

> If you are openminded enough, you may try out e.g. the latest Knoppix DVD and
> discover that wodim and other libscg based programs published by Mr. Bloch
> simply do not work at all (I did try this at Cebit last week on my laptop).
> The original cdrtoools however are known to work.
I don't understand what you mean.  How could cdrkit or cdrtools or any
other burning application work with a disc already in the drive.  What
my real interest is where you think the problems are with the code.
Perhaps you could post a diff between your "superior" cdrtools and the
"inferior" cdrkit and describe where the problems *actually* are?


Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: