2008: Can't burn CDs - Mandriva

This is a discussion on 2008: Can't burn CDs - Mandriva ; In article , Unruh wrote: >One question I have about the CDDa licens is whether or not it allows >someone to include cdrecord in a distro, and have the distro released under >GPL. Ie, does a CDDA licensed part of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 122

Thread: 2008: Can't burn CDs

  1. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:

    >One question I have about the CDDa licens is whether or not it allows
    >someone to include cdrecord in a distro, and have the distro released under
    >GPL. Ie, does a CDDA licensed part of a distro mean tht the whole thing has
    >to be released under CDDA?


    I am not sure what you mean here. At best, this paragraph is full of typos....
    in any case it is unclear what it should mean.

    Let me comment on the GPL for this reson:

    You cannot put a distro under the GPL as the GPL is a source license and a
    distro is a set of binaries.

    The GPL has been listed as non-free license at OpenSource.org for several years.
    Then the FSF send a hint that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes
    the GPL "free" according to the OpenSource rules: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    If you try to judge on license combinations, you would need to follow the wish
    of the FSF that likes to see the GPL amongst the list os free licenses.

    --
    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

  2. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Unruh wrote:


    >>>Cdrdao has not been under development sice ~ 3 years. cdrdao still uses
    >>>the old libscg code that does not work around the Linux-2.6 interface changes.

    >>
    >>>Cdrdao is not better or more reliable than cdrecord. Every time I tried to use
    >>>cdrdao, it failed.

    >>
    >>I found the opposite. I got failures with cdrecord, when cdrdao worked. It
    >>is more clunky than is cdrecord/mkisofs.


    >Could you give an example?


    No sorry. I tend to burn quickly and not that often, so I use what works.
    cdrdao has often worked better for me that cdrecord. Mind you I was using
    the Mandriva release of cdrecord, which as you point out is an old release.
    So, all I can give you is annecdote, which I agree helps you not at all.


    >I found cdrdao hard to use (even more: hard to compile as it was based on
    >the existence of specific Linux several years ago. These bugs were missing on
    >Solaris) and I found that it could never help me where cdrecord missed a feature
    >that was announced as "present" in cdrdao.


    As I said, I found it could burn when cdrecord seemed to fail, and I liked
    gcdmaster as a way of editing the files on the fly. I found having to
    prewrite a toc file a real pain, and it took a while to get a decent
    prototype. I wish you could just give gcdmaster a file, and it would make
    the toc file for you ( since it does edit it and make it after you get that
    first one going).


    But because of the toc file and because I never could figure out how to say
    burn an iso with cdrdao, or compile data files, I certainly still need
    cdrecord/mkisofs.


    >>>>Mandriva 2007.0 has cdrecord 2.01.01 (which I think is still the latest)
    >>>> Best is probably to get

    >>
    >>>This is an _extremely_ outdated source that does not work around the Linux2.6
    >>>incompatibilities....

    >>
    >>>Better get the latest source!

    >>
    >>cdrtools 2.01 is the latest source code on berlios. Why is the mandriva
    >>souce "old"?
    >>And if I look into the files in cdrtools 2.01 from berlios, the most recent
    >>files are from Sep 2004.


    >The latest source currently is in the "schily" source consolidation at:


    >ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily


    >I was in hope to complete BluRay support before christmas but today, the latest
    >version is in the latest stable "schily" snapshot. There will be a new separate
    >source in a few days. The latest separate release is 2.01.01a36.
    >It is easy to find from the web pages. The web pages direct you to the latest
    >version....


    Uh, no. The web page ( assuming you mean www.cdrecord.de) has
    "CDrecord is now available on Berlios" as a link which takes you to
    ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/
    That only has the 2004 version. If you look under BETA the a36 is there.

    In other places on that web page you do point to the ALPHA directory. Here
    you tell us to look in the schily directory, but that seems to be the same
    as the pub/cdrecord directory and again contains only the 2004 release,
    except in the ALPHA and BETA directories.

    Ie, it is NOT easy to find, with lots of distractions.


    >>And why in the world would you keep labeling your release as 2.01.01 when
    >>such massive changes have been made? Please make it easier for people to
    >>find the right source to install.


    >The right source is easy to find and the next "stable" version that will include


    I am telling you that it is NOT easy to find. It is possible, but certainly
    not easy.


    >completed BluRay support will use a different version number....


    Sounds really great. I love what you are doing, and the programs you have
    created. But you do not make it easy.



    >>And if you really want people to use the latest, do not have an
    >>_extremely_ old source as the latest on your download site.
    >>Note that you list that old version (Sept 2004) as the latest stable version
    >> on the freshmeat site.


    >My web pages recommend to use _recent_ sources instead.


    How does anyone know what is recent? When you tell us that the latest
    stable release is 2004 is that recent? When you call something an alpha
    release, that certainly implies to most people that it is an unstable
    release, liable to be full of bugs, and not for use in a production
    environment.

    You need an advertising manager (I know, how the hell can you get an
    advertising manager when You are releasing the product for free, and you
    would really rather be coding, not making web pages)



  3. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:


    >>> It makes no sense to report a bug against wodim. Wodim is dead,
    >>> there are more than 30 logged bugs that (although most of them
    >>> are easy to fix) have not been fixed since more than a year.
    >>> Do not expect this to change...

    >>
    >>I should file a bug report. Then, I should not file a bug
    >>report. Confusing.


    >Make a bug report forthe fact that mandriva comes with wodim.


    >>> defpregap is not the right way to go...
    >>> Why don't you read the cdrecord ore cdda2wav man pages and
    >>> follow the EXAMPLES section that explains how to crete a 100%
    >>> identical copies from an Audio CD?

    >>
    >>The audio CDs I write are almost exclusively from digitized
    >>vinyl or open-reel tape. The examples to make exact copies
    >>of an audio CD do not appear to be relevant. Is the -dao
    >>option the one you would recommend for removing the two
    >>seconds of silence between/before tracks?


    >-dao is the default in cdrecord sice 14 months.


    Ok, that is one year. And most distros do NOT use a copy of cdrecord that
    is that recent.



    >-tao has been marked as bad choice since many years now.
    >The changed default has been announced since ~ y 2000.


    ??? But -tao was the default until late 2006.


    >I know nobody who seriously writes audio CDs in tao mode.


    That may be, but users like us do not know all of those really serious
    people who could have taught us to do it properly.


    >>> If you like to do more than just copying, use a frontend or learn
    >>> how to create a *.inf or *.CUE file.

    >>
    >>Doing "cdrecord -v -eject -pad speed=24 *.wav" has worked
    >>but makes two seconds of silence. Are you saying there
    >>isn't a simple option to eliminate the two seconds of
    >>silence?


    >Nobody in your situation would write in TAO mode....


    Sure they would. If it is the default. And according to you it was the
    default until late 2006,

    >Cdrecord does not create two seconds of silence in SAO mode.
    >If you observe silence, then this is inside your files.


    Or he could be using a cdrecord that is older than 14 months?


  4. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:52:47 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:

    > In article <4772916b$0$47163$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreene ws.net>,
    > Warren Post wrote:


    >>Sounds good. How would I do that? I have cdrecord installed but
    >>drakbackup doesn't provide this option, and K3B won't even launch.

    >
    > He was talking about the real cdrecord, not the fake cdrecord that is
    > just a link to wodim.


    First, an apology for starting this thread and disappearing. Pan stopped
    working under KDE (beats me what I did to kill it) and I finally had to
    install Gnome to get it back. But back on topic...

    Ah, I see you are right: my cdrecord is just a symlink to wodim.

    Before I got Pan working again I managed to fix drakbackup. As is so
    often the case, the problem was user error: I had set drakbackup to
    expect a DVD-RW instead of the CD-RW I was using. Correcting that error
    made drakbackup work. (I took the relevant wording in drakbackup to be
    asking for my hardware's capabilities rather than asking for my media
    type -- my bad.)

    So it turns out that I can burn CDs. K3B still fails to open, but I will
    just try different burning software. In my installation of KDE, all kinds
    of things have stopped working: K3B, Pan, Evolution, kde-window-
    decorator... but that's for another thread if I can't Google my way out
    of it myself. Thanks everyone for your help and your different
    perspectives on cdrecord vs. wodim.
    --
    Warren Post
    Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras
    http://srcopan.vze.com/

  5. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    "Robert M. Riches Jr." writes:

    >On 2007-12-28, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:
    >>
    >>...
    >>>
    >>>The audio CDs I write are almost exclusively from digitized
    >>>vinyl or open-reel tape. The examples to make exact copies
    >>>of an audio CD do not appear to be relevant. Is the -dao
    >>>option the one you would recommend for removing the two
    >>>seconds of silence between/before tracks?

    >>
    >> -dao is the default in cdrecord sice 14 months.
    >>
    >> -tao has been marked as bad choice since many years now.
    >> The changed default has been announced since ~ y 2000.
    >> I know nobody who seriously writes audio CDs in tao mode.
    >>
    >>>> If you like to do more than just copying, use a frontend or learn
    >>>> how to create a *.inf or *.CUE file.
    >>>
    >>>Doing "cdrecord -v -eject -pad speed=24 *.wav" has worked
    >>>but makes two seconds of silence. Are you saying there
    >>>isn't a simple option to eliminate the two seconds of
    >>>silence?

    >>
    >> Nobody in your situation would write in TAO mode....
    >> Cdrecord does not create two seconds of silence in SAO mode.
    >> If you observe silence, then this is inside your files.


    >For the record, my intent is not to argue but to figure out
    >how to get rid of the two seconds of silence, which I
    >understand to be the pre-gap.


    >First, it appears -dao is not the default for Mandriva
    >2007.0's cdrecord-2.01.01-0.a11.2.2mdv2007.0. The command


    Yes, that is an old 2004 version. Schilling stated that dao became the
    default only in late 2006.


    > cdrecord -v -eject -pad speed=24 z1.wav


    >(where z1.wav is 8.42 seconds of random noise)


    >produces output:


    > cdrecord: No write mode specified.
    > cdrecord: Asuming -tao mode.
    > cdrecord: Future versions of cdrecord may have different drive dependent defaults.
    > cdrecord: Continuing in 5 seconds...
    > Cdrecord-ProDVD-Clone 2.01.01a11 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2006 Jörg Schilling
    > TOC Type: 0 = CD-DA
    > ...


    >More importantly, the two seconds of silence I hear on my
    >CDs were _N_O_T_ in my files. I have played the files
    >themselves with a variety of player programs, and there's no
    >silence in the files. However, there is silence when the
    >burned CD is played.


    >Should I be using -dao?


    Yes.



  6. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:


    >>For the record, my intent is not to argue but to figure out
    >>how to get rid of the two seconds of silence, which I
    >>understand to be the pre-gap.
    >>
    >>First, it appears -dao is not the default for Mandriva
    >>2007.0's cdrecord-2.01.01-0.a11.2.2mdv2007.0. The command


    >I neither support outdated versions nor bad forks from other people.


    >Why don't you use cdrecord?


    You really really are your own worst enemy. It is like those ads for PCs vs
    Macs, where the PC guy has a "translator" for all his statements. You need
    one, only for the opposite reason.

    He was using what he believed to be cdrecord. He happened to be using one
    that YOU call the last stable release, although the dvd support had been
    hacked since at the time cdrecord did not have free dvd support.
    Now, had you said
    "That is an old version which does not have -dao as the default, so you
    either need to use -dao flag or preferably use a more recent (eg 2.01-a36)
    version for which dao is the default." you would have prevented yourself
    from potentially making an enemy, conveying more information that you did,
    and helped all of us.

    It is YOU who had tao as the default in cdrecord.
    That was not a bug introduced by anyone else. You have fixed it in recent
    versions.



  7. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Unruh wrote:


    >>One question I have about the CDDa licens is whether or not it allows
    >>someone to include cdrecord in a distro, and have the distro released under
    >>GPL. Ie, does a CDDA licensed part of a distro mean tht the whole thing has
    >>to be released under CDDA?


    >I am not sure what you mean here. At best, this paragraph is full of typos....
    >in any case it is unclear what it should mean.


    >Let me comment on the GPL for this reson:


    >You cannot put a distro under the GPL as the GPL is a source license and a
    >distro is a set of binaries.


    False. GPL is NOT a source license. GPL is a license under copyright law,
    and certainly covers binaries as well as source. It does demand that you
    make the source code available, but it covers far more than just the
    source. It covers all derived works ( which the binary certainly is) as well.

    >The GPL has been listed as non-free license at OpenSource.org for several years.
    >Then the FSF send a hint that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes
    >the GPL "free" according to the OpenSource rules: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    ???
    I assume that you refer to

    9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
    distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must
    not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be
    open-source software.

    Unfortunately then CDDL can be argued is also not open source software, since it demands
    that derived works must also be CDDL. And a distribution certainly is a
    derived work. I can see little difference between the CDDL and GPL on this
    point.




    >If you try to judge on license combinations, you would need to follow the wish
    >of the FSF that likes to see the GPL amongst the list os free licenses.


    I am trying to figure out what he CDDL says, not what GPL says. In
    particular, the CDDL seems to state that any work which includes CDDL
    licensed work, must also be released under the CDDL. This would appear to
    mean that any distro which included a CDDL work as more than a simple
    aggregation (to use GPL words) must also be released under CDDL, not GPL.
    This would of course make it impossible to include a CDDL work in a distro.
    since it would conflict with the requirement from the kernel, that a
    derivative work be released under GPL.

    Thus, can cdrtools, licensed under CDDL, be included as an essential part
    of a distribution which is, as a distribution, released under the GPL (This
    does not mean that every part of the distro becomes GPL, just that the
    independent work, which is the distribution, is GPL).


  8. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:

    >>This is not true: cdrecord in fact is the third application that supports
    >>DVD writing. The DVD support in cdrecord was added in February 1998, long before

    >
    >cdrecord supported DVD writing under the ProDVD release which was not a
    >free release but had to be bought from you. The Mandrake writers hacked
    >the release of cdrecord to add dvd support because a free version was not
    >available. This was their right. Whether or not it was a good hack, I do
    >not know, but it did allow dvd writing on a number of dvd writers before
    >you incorporated dvd writing into the standard cdrecord.


    Wrong: cdrecord was free to use and a mandrake person did reverse engineer
    my code. This person only "implemented" what he understood from the SCSI
    commands and for this reason it is only working correctly with a few drives.

    >>There was a badly reverse engineered DVD variant from a person from mandriva.
    >>This did never support even the basic features that have been in cdrecord since
    >>February 1998. As the wodim "creators" replaced the original DVD support code
    >>from cdrecord by this half baken code, wodim does not really support to write
    >>DVDs.

    >
    >Because you did not release the dvd support for cdrecord under an open
    >license until later.


    Why don't you inform yourself about the background?

    http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/priva...ource-why.html

    It is too simple to repeat lies from people who attack me... It is harder
    to understand the background of these people.


    >>>It is not clear to me what you mean by a more liberal license. If this
    >>>license stopped people from doing something they could do when it was under
    >>>the GPL, then it does not sound more liberal to me.

    >
    >>What is your problem? I thought the word "liberal" should be easy to understand.

    >
    >Yes, I would have thought it was easy to understand. I would have thought that it meant it had
    >fewer restrictions than the GPL does. But your comments lead me to believe
    >it has more, since the wodim authors could make a fork from the GPL version
    >but apparently cannot of the CDDA version. That sounds to me like more
    >restrictive, less liberal. I might be wrong, but certainly the impression I
    >got from the discussions I have seen is that part of the reason for the
    >CDDA license was to make what happened with wodim not able to happen to the
    >new cdrecord. Am I wrong?


    The GPL is very restrictive and many people missunderstand it.
    The way the people from the wodim "fork" argue with the GPL would make it
    clearly non-free according to the OSS definition:
    http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

    Even the Opensource people thought this way and called the GPL non-free for
    several years until the FSF said that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way
    that make it compliant to the OSS definition.

    Cdrecord now uses a license that is doubtlessly free!

    >>I was talking about Debian. From my information, a standard Debian system does
    >>not include cmake. Debian started the fork and Debian seems to ignore the GPL
    >>requirements when they publish wodim binaries.

    >
    >Debian has such a huge repository of programs, I am sure that cmake is
    >there somewhere. But I admit I have not looked for it.


    I asked people who use Debian and I did even asked a person to type in "cmake".
    Cmake is not part of a typical Debian distribution and for this reason, the
    wodim source does not follow the GPL requirements.



    >>It was a move from well maintained original software to an unmaintained fork
    >>made from a very old version.....

    >
    >A version you still advertise on freshmeat as the latest stable release.
    >Everything more recent is "Developement"


    freshmeat advertizes this version, I don't.

    Given the fact that there was no "stable" Linux kernel since more than 4 years,
    it seems to me that Linux users have no problem with using software that is
    called a "development" release.



    --
    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

  9. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:

    >>>I found the opposite. I got failures with cdrecord, when cdrdao worked. It
    >>>is more clunky than is cdrecord/mkisofs.

    >
    >>Could you give an example?

    >
    >No sorry. I tend to burn quickly and not that often, so I use what works.
    >cdrdao has often worked better for me that cdrecord. Mind you I was using
    >the Mandriva release of cdrecord, which as you point out is an old release.
    >So, all I can give you is annecdote, which I agree helps you not at all.


    I only checked cdrdao when cdrecord failed for me and in these cases cdrdao
    failed worse. Given the fact that I added support to cdrecord for these cases
    and cdrdao was not enhanced since then, cdrdao should still fail in the cases
    that have been important to me while cdrecord supports them now.


    >As I said, I found it could burn when cdrecord seemed to fail, and I liked
    >gcdmaster as a way of editing the files on the fly. I found having to
    >prewrite a toc file a real pain, and it took a while to get a decent
    >prototype. I wish you could just give gcdmaster a file, and it would make
    >the toc file for you ( since it does edit it and make it after you get that
    >first one going).


    The problem with cdrdao is that it invented a new control file format ".TOC"
    that is too different from the comon .CUE format. cdrdao implements a small
    subset of the .CUE format. Cdrecord implements nearly complete .CUE support.


    >Uh, no. The web page ( assuming you mean www.cdrecord.de) has


    This URL has been hijacked by a domain grabber

    >>completed BluRay support will use a different version number....

    >
    >Sounds really great. I love what you are doing, and the programs you have
    >created. But you do not make it easy.


    I try to follow all useful hints for better information.

    >You need an advertising manager (I know, how the hell can you get an
    >advertising manager when You are releasing the product for free, and you
    >would really rather be coding, not making web pages)


    I am not a web designer. I would like to get help but this is hard in a world
    where people hate me for creating free software because there is some intrigues
    from some Debian people.

    --
    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

  10. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    On 29 Dec 2007 00:13:25 GMT, Joerg Schilling wrote:

    > Given the fact that there was no "stable" Linux kernel since more
    > than 4 years, it seems to me that Linux users have no problem with
    > using software that is called a "development" release.


    Getting a bit far afield here.

    Why not create a cdrecord rpm, get it into the contrib repository and
    let the user decide if they want cdrecord or accept the wodim default.

  11. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:

    >>First, it appears -dao is not the default for Mandriva
    >>2007.0's cdrecord-2.01.01-0.a11.2.2mdv2007.0. The command

    >
    >Yes, that is an old 2004 version. Schilling stated that dao became the
    >default only in late 2006.


    This is not a real cdrecord but the fork.

    Note that the people who made wodim did use the name cdrecord
    until several Copyright holders told them that this is not permitted by the GPL.



    --
    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

  12. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:
    >js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
    >
    >>In article ,
    >>Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:

    >
    >>>For the record, my intent is not to argue but to figure out
    >>>how to get rid of the two seconds of silence, which I
    >>>understand to be the pre-gap.
    >>>
    >>>First, it appears -dao is not the default for Mandriva
    >>>2007.0's cdrecord-2.01.01-0.a11.2.2mdv2007.0. The command

    >
    >>I neither support outdated versions nor bad forks from other people.

    >
    >>Why don't you use cdrecord?

    >
    >You really really are your own worst enemy. It is like those ads for PCs vs
    >Macs, where the PC guy has a "translator" for all his statements. You need
    >one, only for the opposite reason.


    My worst enemy is Mr. Bloch who used my names and who spread bad software using
    my names.

    This is _not_ cdrecord but a defective fork. I thought this was unambiguous.

    --
    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

  13. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Unruh wrote:

    >>Let me comment on the GPL for this reson:

    >
    >>You cannot put a distro under the GPL as the GPL is a source license and a
    >>distro is a set of binaries.

    >
    >False. GPL is NOT a source license. GPL is a license under copyright law,
    >and certainly covers binaries as well as source. It does demand that you
    > make the source code available, but it covers far more than just the
    >source. It covers all derived works ( which the binary certainly is) as well.


    False again: The binary created from GPL sources contains _more_ than only
    portions from the covered source. For this reason, the GPL would be 100% illegal
    it it did require to put the binary under GPL:

    In fact, the GPL is obvious that the binary is not under GPL but too many people
    missread the GPL. The GPL uses the term "this license" at all places except for
    GPL §3 where it says: "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" which clearly
    distinguishes between code that is part of "the work" and code that is not.
    Only those parts that belong to "the work" need to be under GPL and this
    definitely does not apply to the binary.

    >>The GPL has been listed as non-free license at OpenSource.org for several years.
    >>Then the FSF send a hint that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes
    >>the GPL "free" according to the OpenSource rules: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    >???
    >I assume that you refer to
    >
    >9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    >The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
    >distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must
    >not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be
    >open-source software.
    >
    >Unfortunately then CDDL can be argued is also not open source software, since it demands
    >that derived works must also be CDDL. And a distribution certainly is a
    >derived work. I can see little difference between the CDDL and GPL on this
    >point.


    The CDDL is _very_ obvious not to put any requirements on "other" code.
    You should reread the CDDL...

    The CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL and it is accepted as "free" license.

    If your assumptions would be correct, the CDDL was not free, but it definitely
    is.

    --
    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

  14. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    In article ,
    Bit Twister wrote:
    >On 29 Dec 2007 00:13:25 GMT, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    >
    >> Given the fact that there was no "stable" Linux kernel since more
    >> than 4 years, it seems to me that Linux users have no problem with
    >> using software that is called a "development" release.

    >
    >Getting a bit far afield here.
    >
    >Why not create a cdrecord rpm, get it into the contrib repository and
    >let the user decide if they want cdrecord or accept the wodim default.



    I am the author of the code. My duty is to create a useful source.

    It is your duty to create binaries for your "niche system"....

    --
    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

  15. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >>
    >>Because you did not release the dvd support for cdrecord under an open
    >>license until later.


    >Why don't you inform yourself about the background?


    >http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/priva...ource-why.html


    Interesting. I am not at all sure why you say that GPL did not allow you to
    go after the company that took your code, nor why you believe CDDL is
    better in this regard. It would seem to me that it would be simple to argue
    that the code they used was a derived work from your code. Of course the
    Germal laws might be different with respect to derived works. (Only the
    copyright holder is permitted to make derived works under US copyright
    law).

    Looking at it again, the only situation I could imagine is that that
    "bigger company" used the code from cdrecord in a private internal system.
    It is true that the GPL does not restrict reusing stuff that you do not
    distribute. Thus if the company used derivatives of your code for internal
    use only, then the GPL would allow them to do so. Is that the issue you
    refer to? It is not clear to me that the CDDL restricts such an action. (Note that if it does, it is less
    liberal than the GPL in that aspect.)






    >It is too simple to repeat lies from people who attack me... It is harder
    >to understand the background of these people.



    I am not repeating lies. I am describing what I saw from the late 90s on,
    as I was (marginally) interested in DVD writing.



    >>>>It is not clear to me what you mean by a more liberal license. If this
    >>>>license stopped people from doing something they could do when it was under
    >>>>the GPL, then it does not sound more liberal to me.

    >>
    >>>What is your problem? I thought the word "liberal" should be easy to understand.

    >>
    >>Yes, I would have thought it was easy to understand. I would have thought that it meant it had
    >>fewer restrictions than the GPL does. But your comments lead me to believe
    >>it has more, since the wodim authors could make a fork from the GPL version
    >>but apparently cannot of the CDDA version. That sounds to me like more
    >>restrictive, less liberal. I might be wrong, but certainly the impression I
    >>got from the discussions I have seen is that part of the reason for the
    >>CDDA license was to make what happened with wodim not able to happen to the
    >>new cdrecord. Am I wrong?


    >The GPL is very restrictive and many people missunderstand it.
    >The way the people from the wodim "fork" argue with the GPL would make it
    >clearly non-free according to the OSS definition:
    >http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd


    Yes, I read that. And I still do not understand why anything there would
    make GPL non-free. Nor do I know the wodim arguements. The GPL would seem to
    me to comply with all of the requirements.


    >Even the Opensource people thought this way and called the GPL non-free for
    >several years until the FSF said that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way
    >that make it compliant to the OSS definition.


    >Cdrecord now uses a license that is doubtlessly free!


    I do not see the essential difference between CDDR and GPL in this context.
    What for you is the essential difference?



    >>>I was talking about Debian. From my information, a standard Debian system does
    >>>not include cmake. Debian started the fork and Debian seems to ignore the GPL
    >>>requirements when they publish wodim binaries.

    >>
    >>Debian has such a huge repository of programs, I am sure that cmake is
    >>there somewhere. But I admit I have not looked for it.


    >I asked people who use Debian and I did even asked a person to type in "cmake".
    >Cmake is not part of a typical Debian distribution and for this reason, the
    >wodim source does not follow the GPL requirements.


    I would certainly not agree, since cmake IS available as an open source.
    You could install any distro without gcc but I would not argee that it made
    all programs non-GPL compliant. I think this argument is a pretty weak one.





    >>>It was a move from well maintained original software to an unmaintained fork
    >>>made from a very old version.....

    >>
    >>A version you still advertise on freshmeat as the latest stable release.
    >>Everything more recent is "Developement"


    >freshmeat advertizes this version, I don't.


    ?I thought that freshmeat site was controlled by you?
    Clearly if they think that that one is the last stable version, then you
    have not been very clear.


    >Given the fact that there was no "stable" Linux kernel since more than 4 years,
    >it seems to me that Linux users have no problem with using software that is
    >called a "development" release.


    All even numbered kernel versions are, I thought, stable versions.
    (Mind you I will admit that I do not recall any 2.7 kernels).

    Anyway, the point is not that people could not use it, but that you convey
    the impression, both on your web page, on your ftp repository, and on
    freshmeat, that that old version is OK, and is in fact the preferred
    version if you want stability.



  16. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    On 29 Dec 2007 00:42:57 GMT, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    >
    > I am the author of the code. My duty is to create a useful source.
    >
    > It is your duty to create binaries for your "niche system"....


    Well, I went to
    ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/

    pulled two tars, twice, and can not get them to match your !MD5_SUMS


    $ cat cdr.md5sum
    3a7c452738eb9f58c738908d8146601d cdrecord.tar.gz
    3a7c452738eb9f58c738908d8146601d cdrtools.tar.gz

    $ md5sum -c cdr.md5sum
    cdrecord.tar.gz: FAILED
    cdrtools.tar.gz: FAILED
    md5sum: WARNING: 2 of 2 computed checksums did NOT match

    cmp and diff agree both tar files contain same contents as indicated
    by the md5sum values.


  17. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:43:53 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    > I am telling you that it is NOT easy to find. It is possible, but
    > certainly not easy.
    >
    >
    >>completed BluRay support will use a different version number....

    >
    > Sounds really great. I love what you are doing, and the programs you
    > have created. But you do not make it easy.


    I have to agree with you. You get the 2004 version from freshmeat. The
    website is very confusing and the latest gets you the 2004 version. Most
    people won't even attempt alpha or beta versions if they can even find
    them. IMO, he needs to replace the the plain download version with
    something more current as that's the version most people will probably
    download.

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
    Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
    AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

  18. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:


    >>As I said, I found it could burn when cdrecord seemed to fail, and I liked
    >>gcdmaster as a way of editing the files on the fly. I found having to
    >>prewrite a toc file a real pain, and it took a while to get a decent
    >>prototype. I wish you could just give gcdmaster a file, and it would make
    >>the toc file for you ( since it does edit it and make it after you get that
    >>first one going).


    >The problem with cdrdao is that it invented a new control file format ".TOC"
    >that is too different from the comon .CUE format. cdrdao implements a small
    >subset of the .CUE format. Cdrecord implements nearly complete .CUE support.


    Maybe, but the .toc files are not that difficult to set up, but I agree
    that it is a pain to do so. gcdmaster helps a lot, but it would be nice if
    they had it make a .toc from scratch. But if you are right then I guess we
    will not see any new features.




    >>Uh, no. The web page ( assuming you mean www.cdrecord.de) has


    >This URL has been hijacked by a domain grabber


    Sorry, you are right, I was going by clearly bad memory. It was
    cdrecord.berlios.de that I was refering to.


    >>>completed BluRay support will use a different version number....

    >>
    >>Sounds really great. I love what you are doing, and the programs you have
    >>created. But you do not make it easy.


    >I try to follow all useful hints for better information.


    >>You need an advertising manager (I know, how the hell can you get an
    >>advertising manager when You are releasing the product for free, and you
    >>would really rather be coding, not making web pages)


    >I am not a web designer. I would like to get help but this is hard in a world
    >where people hate me for creating free software because there is some intrigues
    >from some Debian people.


    No, they certainly do not hate you for creating free software. They love
    you for that. They may get annoyed with your attitude at times--sometimes
    justifyably, sometimes not.
    Part of the problem in your web page is that it never gets pruned-- there
    is stuff there that is 10 years old and does not apply anymore.

    By the way, you need to move
    FAQ Download latest Download recent Download
    to below the Logo. Believe it or not, I looked at that page 5 times before
    I saw those options. That may be me, but...
    And I have no idea why you have that Download option there, since it takes
    you to a 4 year old version of cdrecord (Sept 04) which you do not want
    anyone to use anymore. If you do not want them using it, do not make it an
    option, especially not an apparently preferred option.

    It would also be useful if you could get a .spec file so that the suite
    could be easily set up as an rpm on an rpm based distribution.




  19. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Unruh wrote:


    >>>First, it appears -dao is not the default for Mandriva
    >>>2007.0's cdrecord-2.01.01-0.a11.2.2mdv2007.0. The command

    >>
    >>Yes, that is an old 2004 version. Schilling stated that dao became the
    >>default only in late 2006.


    >This is not a real cdrecord but the fork.

    That does not alter the fact that dao only became the default in late 2006
    in any version of cdrecord according to you.


    >Note that the people who made wodim did use the name cdrecord
    >until several Copyright holders told them that this is not permitted by
    >the GPL.


    Agreed. It was confusing.


  20. Re: 2008: Can't burn CDs

    js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

    >In article ,
    >Unruh wrote:


    >>>Let me comment on the GPL for this reson:

    >>
    >>>You cannot put a distro under the GPL as the GPL is a source license and a
    >>>distro is a set of binaries.

    >>
    >>False. GPL is NOT a source license. GPL is a license under copyright law,
    >>and certainly covers binaries as well as source. It does demand that you
    >> make the source code available, but it covers far more than just the
    >>source. It covers all derived works ( which the binary certainly is) as well.


    >False again: The binary created from GPL sources contains _more_ than only
    >portions from the covered source. For this reason, the GPL would be 100% illegal
    >it it did require to put the binary under GPL:


    The binary is a derived work of the source code. As such, it must be under
    the GPL (or it is illegal to use).
    If it includes other code, that other stuff must also be under a license
    that allows derived works to be under the GPL as well ( and since it it
    almost always compiled under gcc and uses libraries glibc which are GPL or
    LGPL as well, that is not a problem).



    >In fact, the GPL is obvious that the binary is not under GPL but too many people
    >missread the GPL. The GPL uses the term "this license" at all places except for
    >GPL §3 where it says: "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" which clearly
    >distinguishes between code that is part of "the work" and code that is not.
    >Only those parts that belong to "the work" need to be under GPL and this
    >definitely does not apply to the binary.


    It states that derived works, and compiled code is clearly a derived work,
    must be under the GPL.


    >>>The GPL has been listed as non-free license at OpenSource.org for several years.
    >>>Then the FSF send a hint that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes
    >>>the GPL "free" according to the OpenSource rules: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

    >>???
    >>I assume that you refer to
    >>
    >>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    >>The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
    >>distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must
    >>not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be
    >>open-source software.
    >>
    >>Unfortunately then CDDL can be argued is also not open source software, since it demands
    >>that derived works must also be CDDL. And a distribution certainly is a
    >>derived work. I can see little difference between the CDDL and GPL on this
    >>point.


    >The CDDL is _very_ obvious not to put any requirements on "other" code.
    >You should reread the CDDL...


    That is not clear. The CDDL defines
    1.9. Modifications means the
    Source Code and Executable form of any of the following:
    ......

    B. Any new file that contains any part of
    the Original Software or previous Modification; or

    and then states:

    #

    3.2. Modifications.

    The Modifications that You create or to which You
    contribute are governed by the terms of this License. You
    represent that You believe Your Modifications are Your
    original creation(s) and/or You have sufficient rights to
    grant the rights conveyed by this License.


    Clearly the .iso file of any distribution falls under this definition of
    "modification" and thus by 3.2 MUST be released under this license.



    >The CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL and it is accepted as "free" license.


    GPL, version 1, 2 and 3 is also accepted as "free" license.


    >If your assumptions would be correct, the CDDL was not free, but it definitely
    >is.


    Or GPL and CDDL are both free. Anyway, this argument is circular without a
    definition of what "free" means. If by "free" you mean "accepted by the OSI
    as free" then both are free.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast