On Thursday 2009 January 08 08:08:58 Joerg Schilling wrote: >"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> 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." -- > >The people behind wodim did not start an independent development. Yes they did. >All they did was to take an old source, remove the pefectly working build >system, replace it by something that is broken and add some other bugs to > the source. After 8 months of speudo activity, wodim is dead since May 6th > 2007. 1) Writing the new build system is separate development. 2) wodim had a release 2008-10-26. It is still under active development. >> > 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. > >See above, there is no support. Bugs reports are either marked as closed > altough the bug still exist or they are ignored. This is not what I would > call "mainteied". Wodim is dead since May 6th 2007. Not true. Anyone interested in verifying my claim can use the Debian BTS. I provided a link to the BTS in my last email. >> > 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. > >Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is >also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course able > to sue the people behind wodim for more than violation. Please make the documents supporting this claim available so that we may all be enlightened. Until then, it adds nothing to what has already been argued on both sides. >> 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. > >The GPL gives you the right to use the code if you follow the conditions. >The GPL does not give you the right to use the original name for a fork. > >Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The > original names are used without permission and in addition, there are other > Copyright violations. Whether the name is used as a simply technical measure to ensure interoperability is important. Wodim does not use the cdrecord name for other purposes. Copyright does not protect the necessary interfaces required for interoperability. Please be more specific in your claims on "other Copyright violations". It is not a specific enough claim to deny or confirm. >> > 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. > >All those releases are more stable than any of the wodim releases, so what? I am counting releases considered and labeled stable by the team/project releasing it. Wodim has more than cdrecord since the fork occurred. >> > >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. > >Wrong: none of those reports applies to the original cdrtools source code >as Debian has a 4-5 year history of distributing broken modified versions. I disagree, having experienced some of these errors myself. Yes, I installed using your files, not the Debian package, and yes, I made sure the binaries were suid root. Please provide evidence of your claim. >I asked you to name me a single bug in the original cdrtools and you seem >to be unable to point to such a problem - thank you! Denying that bugs reported exist or apply to your program does not make that true. I produced evidence of dozens of bugs that have affected cdrecord in the past, which was my claim. Please provide some evidence to your claim. >> I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally >> do doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal. > >I know that wodim is not legal and my laywer supports this. As mentioned > above, there is more than one way to sue the people behind wodim because > there is more than one violation in wodim. Please make your lawyers analysis available so that we may be enlightened. Otherwise, you claim adds nothing to the arguments already presented on both sides. >> 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. > >???? You sound confused. I am not. The person putting forth the argument doesn't matter to the validity of the argument. Instead, the quality of their references, how intuitive and self-consistent their logic, and how well their assumptions match with my own determine how valid I consider their arguments. Both your legal claims around the GPL seem counter-intuitive, and not entirely self-consistent. >The authors of the CDDL do definitely not claim that there is an >incompatibility. You are again listening to the wrong people. Yes, they do. You've already seen the video, as have many others, including myself. >In contrary to your claims, on my request the Sun lawyers did do a very >intensive legal review of the cdrtools project this Summer and did not find >any problem. Please provide the review so that I can read it and be conviced. I need documentation from you, not claims. I already know your claims. >In fact, the current license situation is present since May 2006 and noone > did try to sue Sun, Gentoo or Slackware for distributing the original > cdrtools. Gentoo doesn't distribute software in the same way. It's possible no one with standing cares that Sun, Gentoo, or Slackware distribute there code in a way contrary to the license. That doesn't mean there isn't that risk. It also doesn't mean Debian should assume the same risk. > Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the > needed rights on the software. True enough. > Claiming that Debian could be sued for > distributin the original software is obviously pure FUD. I disagree, as does Debian. Debian has deemed it an unacceptable risk. >Cdrtools _is_ free software and it of course follows the rules in >http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and >http://www.debian.org/social_contract I disagree. The particulars of cdrecord's licensing effectively violates #1 and #3 in the opensource definition and DFSG. If that were the only problem, it could possibly be in non-free, but instead it also exposes Debian to legal risk, in Debian's opinion. >The problem is that some people inside Debian missinterpret >http://www.debian.org/social_contract and in special try to establish > different rules for cdrtools and the rest of the debian packages. No, the problem is cdrecords unique combination of licenses. -- 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.