Re: notable Debian contributions in 2006
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> list.
If you like to ignore the nettiquette, this is your choice....
The nettiquette requires not to remove recipients from a list.
> 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.
I did but you ignore it... Let me give again some hints on problems with
Mr. Blochs fork:
- dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs.
- no useful DVD support.
- The tools do not work at all on Knoppix
There are more
> > 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.
Distros who did not ask me are obviously overpowered by Mr. Bloch because
they did never try to find out whether his claims are correct.
> > > 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?
Are you really unable to understand the problem?
It makes no sense to quote text that is not related to what's done inside
cdrtools. If you like to be taken for serious, you should not quote text that
only applies to non-GPL code that has been derived from GPLd code.
> > You did not provide anything relevent, sorry.
> >
> Only because you choose to ignore it.
In contryry: I read it and commented it but you do not seem to understand
licensing issues.
> By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose
You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things.
Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less
free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute
more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree
desaster.
cdrtools changed it's license to a more free that is approved and
accepted by the FROSS community and some Debian people did start an obscure
campagne basec on accusations only.
> 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.
The majority of the users do not care about licenses and a lot of people did
send congratulations for the more free license no in use.
> > > 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
> people.
>
> > 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 believe that he writes technical based claims, you seem to have problems
with discussing things on a technical base.
> > 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?
???
It looks like you miss some basic knowledge on what cdrtools do and how they
are used.
Some people like to _read_ non-empty CDs/DVDs (either data or audio) and some
people like to add new sessions multi session CDs/DVDs.
Let us continue this _after_ you started to understand the license related
topics and after you started to understand the technical base for CD/DVD
writing.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Reply to: