I'm sorry if anyone is on the CC list that doesn't want to be. I was simply following Joerg's lead. I understand that unrequested CCing is against the Code of Conduct @ http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct and will gladly drop your address from my mails if requested. On Wednesday 2009 January 07 10:23:52 Joerg Schilling wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork. > A fork is something that is supported, Not true. "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fork_(software_development)&oldid=260319294 Forks do not require support. > but wodim is unsupported. Also not true. Debian supports all the software shipped in main, and provides best-effort support to software shipped in contrib and non-free. In addition, wodim's upstream is still very much alive. > >assertion that wodim violates the GPL and Germany's "Author's Rights" (I > >can't spell the original German word.) does not appear to be supported by > >precident or even trained legal analysis of the specifics. I don't think > >wodim can be reasonably held to hurt Joerg's reputation or integrity. > > Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*). > > *) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html > > Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed I disagree and I don't think either of us can point to established precedent. I also don't think there has been any legal analysis (meaning: done by a lawyer as legal advice) done on the particulars. > >Providing symlinks from the old binary names to the new ones, and giving > >similar output are, in fact, required for interoperability. > > The problem is that many people still believe that they have a real > cdrecord when they call "cdrecord" and this is not true. > > These people then are confused when features that have been introduced > three years ago are missing in their (expected to be recent) "version" of > cdrecord. Wodim identifies itself in both documentation and at runtime as a separate work form cdrecord. That's all that is required to satisfy the GPL. I can't speak to satisfying the Urheberrecht, as I do not speak the original language. > >That said, wodim was forked from a "really old" version of cdrecord (the > > last version that was clearly licensed under the GPL). Of course, > > browsing Joerg's site shows you that cdrecord hasn't had a stable release > > in 4.5 years and wodim had a stable release 2 months ago. > > Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months. All labeled "alpha", not "stable". I was very clear that I was only counting stable releases. > >Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If > > This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with cdrecord. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;package=cdrecord Anything with a bug number < 350738 is or was a problem with cdrecord. > >either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with > >Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install > >cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's > > clearly a bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg > > interpretation is incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a > > defined phrase in the GPL) means something other than what it is defined > > to mean. > > I am not sure about your intention here. If you care about legallity, you > cannot use wodim, so what is your point? I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally do doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal. > The original software is of course free software. It seems that you are in > doubt because you listen to the wrong people ;-) Other than you, I couldn't name anyone I listen to. Instead I listen to the argument, independent of the person making it. Your arguments seem to be on more tenuous foundation, and counter-intuitive. That said, some legal decision on the matter could demonstrate effectively that I am quite wrong. Both the authors of the CDDL and the GPL have said these licenses are incompatible, making it impossible to satisfy both at once. According the the most plain interpretation of both documents, that would be necessary for someone other than the original author to distribute binaries of cdrecord. Software that can't be distributed in binary form by someone other than the author is not free software. Thus, I believe cdrecord to be not free software. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.