K3b and OpenSuse 10.3 - Suse

This is a discussion on K3b and OpenSuse 10.3 - Suse ; In article , David Bolt wrote: >On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:- > >>In article , >>David Bolt wrote: > >>>It doesn't provide *the same support* for DVDs as cdrecord. That is not >>>in dispute. Your claim was ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

  1. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    In article ,
    David Bolt wrote:
    >On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:-
    >
    >>In article <5HrsaerhSLKHFwA1@dev.null.davjam.org>,
    >>David Bolt wrote:

    >
    >>>It doesn't provide *the same support* for DVDs as cdrecord. That is not
    >>>in dispute. Your claim was that wodim didn't support it is because it
    >>>doesn't provide the same information as cdrecord. Just because it
    >>>doesn't produce the same output doesn't mean it isn't supported.

    >>
    >>A really strange claim from you!

    >
    >If it didn't support writing to DVDs, I wouldn't be able to write to a
    >DVD using wodim. Since I can write to DVD using wodim, and I use almost
    >exclusively DVD+Rs, there must be DVD support in wodim.


    In special for DVD+, there are many bug reports against wodim that verify that
    there is no usable support in wodim.

    Do you know the difference between "it may sometimes work" and "it works"?


    >>wodim does not output anything related to the information on the
    >>medium when calling wodim with -atip and you still try to tell us
    >>it supprts DVDs?

    >
    >As mentioned above, wodim has write support for DVDs, which you claim it
    >doesn't have.


    For correct write support, there would be the need to read the "atip" info
    and use the values. If wodim was able to do this, it would only be a few
    printf() calls to write output for wodim -atip.

    The main issue is that wodim claims to be compatible to cdrecord but it is
    not.

    --
    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: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 17:52 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > In article <1193933737.8972.21.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com>,
    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >
    > >> It is interesting to see that you claim wrong things that
    > >> people who _read_
    > >>
    > >> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/priva...ource-why.html
    > >>
    > >> would immediately identify as being wrong. A NDA prevented me from
    > >> publishing the source but the code has been freely available to you.
    > >> Please do not try again to spread FUD.

    > >
    > >But back then, you NEVER (afaik) said a word about why you pulled
    > >the source back and made it non-free. You just did it.
    > >You don't have to give the reasons why... but if you had back
    > >then, I think people wouldn't have been so upset and all of
    > >the desires to fork would have never occurred (perhaps?).
    > >
    > >Again... I'm really NOT trying to spread FUD. Do feel free
    > >to correct any of this.

    >
    > Why then _do_ you spread FUD?
    >
    > I did never pull back the source!


    ??? You mean we could have had the source for cdrecord-proDVD
    all along? Just that irritating need for a key would have
    been nice to eliminate. Sheesh. Can't believe we were
    all so stupid.

    Still not seeing how I'm spreading FUD. I thought I
    was just being honest in asking you to clarify some things
    for everyone here. I really DO remember a day when
    cdrecord-proDVD was distributed only in a binary manner
    and it was restricted to writing only 1GB to a DVD unless
    you obtained a key. I remember that you provided a
    a free expiring key for non-commercial use and that you
    had a non-expiring key for commercial use that you could
    purchase (???). Also I remember that you would at your
    discretion grant someone a non-expiring key for
    non-commercial use if they filled out a brief form
    and mailed it to you.

    I'm serious Joerg... if this is FUD, please correct
    it. I do not want to spread FUD.


    >
    > I did never make cdrecord non-free.


    Ok... are you sure? I seem to recall a $100 fee
    for a copy of cdrecord-proDVD (a version of cdrecord
    that could write DVDs) without restrictions.

    >
    >
    > >> I would asume the personal offenses that Linus Toravalds send against me is
    > >> more than just "atittude"...
    > >>

    > >
    > >Linux does have an attitude... that's for sure! Didn't know he was
    > >trying hurl personal attacks against you. That's bad form. BUT,
    > >you know, Linux and Linus are somewhat joined at the hip, and you
    > >have been known to say some nasty things (and you still do afaik)
    > >about Linux. He probably took some of those things too personally.
    > >Just a guess. Not trying to excuse anything bad that Linus may
    > >have said to you...

    >
    > ???
    >
    > It is bad to see that people on LKML who are publically known attack
    > other people. It is even worse if this is done by Mr. Torvalds.
    >


    Agreed. I do find your accusations that I'm spreading FUD offensive,
    but I'm willing to have you school me with regards to the truth.

    And if you feel my take on the history of cdrecord and especially
    what I view as the "non free" period comprising of cdrecord-proDVD
    in particular is FUD... again, please feel free to correct me.
    And I do apologize for any FUD I may have spread here.




  3. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    In article <1193942592.8972.37.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com>,
    Chris Cox wrote:

    >> >Again... I'm really NOT trying to spread FUD. Do feel free
    >> >to correct any of this.

    >>
    >> Why then _do_ you spread FUD?
    >>
    >> I did never pull back the source!

    >
    >??? You mean we could have had the source for cdrecord-proDVD
    >all along? Just that irritating need for a key would have
    >been nice to eliminate. Sheesh. Can't believe we were
    >all so stupid.


    I am sorry to see that you again start to spread FUD, so let me
    just answer to one of your incorrect claims:

    The DVD support source code in cdrecord has never been published before
    May 15th 2006, so _how_ could a non-published source be _pulled_ _back_?

    I am sorry to see that you are not interested in a serious discussion.
    Let us stop it now, it is most improbable that you will change.


    --
    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

  4. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 09:55 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > In article <1193942592.8972.37.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com>,
    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >
    > >> >Again... I'm really NOT trying to spread FUD. Do feel free
    > >> >to correct any of this.
    > >>
    > >> Why then _do_ you spread FUD?
    > >>
    > >> I did never pull back the source!

    > >
    > >??? You mean we could have had the source for cdrecord-proDVD
    > >all along? Just that irritating need for a key would have
    > >been nice to eliminate. Sheesh. Can't believe we were
    > >all so stupid.

    >
    > I am sorry to see that you again start to spread FUD, so let me
    > just answer to one of your incorrect claims:
    >
    > The DVD support source code in cdrecord has never been published before
    > May 15th 2006, so _how_ could a non-published source be _pulled_ _back_?
    >
    > I am sorry to see that you are not interested in a serious discussion.
    > Let us stop it now, it is most improbable that you will change.
    >
    >


    Didn't mean to upset you so much. I think the confusion is that
    there was cdrecord and then there was cdrecord-proDVD. cdrecord
    was "free" and cdrecord-proDVD was not. I think that most people
    thought that future development of cdrecord was in the form of
    cdrecord-proDVD and thus people were frustrated that it (assuming
    it WAS the future of cdrecord) was no longer free.

    I apologize if you don't think this is "serious discussion". You
    seem to feel that people arbitrarily started to create forks way
    back when. But perhaps due to a lack of communication, people
    felt that you were going in a non-FOSS direction and so out
    of desperation, people started doing different projects to
    replace cdrecord.

    Thanks for clearing things up.... hope your the only one
    that feels this discussion is "FUD". I found it to be quite
    illuminating.




  5. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    In article <1194016454.8972.70.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com>,
    Chris Cox wrote:

    >> The DVD support source code in cdrecord has never been published before
    >> May 15th 2006, so _how_ could a non-published source be _pulled_ _back_?

    ....

    >Didn't mean to upset you so much. I think the confusion is that
    >there was cdrecord and then there was cdrecord-proDVD. cdrecord
    >was "free" and cdrecord-proDVD was not. I think that most people
    >thought that future development of cdrecord was in the form of
    >cdrecord-proDVD and thus people were frustrated that it (assuming
    >it WAS the future of cdrecord) was no longer free.


    There is and always was _one_ cdrecord source and a limited OSS distribution
    that did visibly evolve.

    I did always make clear what the background of that decision has been.

    Unfortunately, there have been many trolls who spread dissinformation in order
    to harm the project. Then there was a person called "Bernhard Rosenkränzer" who
    published a defective variant of cdrtools in February 2001. He called it a
    "fork" but the only work on the source was to first nake it 100% nonportable
    and then trying to fix the selfmade bugs. In September 2006 Mr. Eduard Bloch
    did the same. Both "forks" died after less than a year.


    In the past time, cdrtools has been enhanced in major way but people still
    spread FUD on the cdrtools project....

    --
    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

  6. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 16:39 +0000, Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > In article <1194016454.8972.70.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com>,
    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >
    > >> The DVD support source code in cdrecord has never been published before
    > >> May 15th 2006, so _how_ could a non-published source be _pulled_ _back_?

    > ...
    >
    > >Didn't mean to upset you so much. I think the confusion is that
    > >there was cdrecord and then there was cdrecord-proDVD. cdrecord
    > >was "free" and cdrecord-proDVD was not. I think that most people
    > >thought that future development of cdrecord was in the form of
    > >cdrecord-proDVD and thus people were frustrated that it (assuming
    > >it WAS the future of cdrecord) was no longer free.

    >
    > There is and always was _one_ cdrecord source and a limited OSS distribution
    > that did visibly evolve.
    >
    > I did always make clear what the background of that decision has been.


    Thanks again Joerg... but I'm pretty sure I was not the only one with
    the completely wrong impression of the situation. Again.. probably just
    a communication problem.. but man... talk about getting things wrong.

    >
    > Unfortunately, there have been many trolls who spread dissinformation in order
    > to harm the project. Then there was a person called "Bernhard Rosenkrnzer" who
    > published a defective variant of cdrtools in February 2001. He called it a
    > "fork" but the only work on the source was to first nake it 100% nonportable
    > and then trying to fix the selfmade bugs. In September 2006 Mr. Eduard Bloch
    > did the same. Both "forks" died after less than a year.


    Ok... but I tell you my intent was not the spreading of FUD, and I hope
    that you can at least see (maybe) why I was somewhat confused over
    the matter.

    >
    >
    > In the past time, cdrtools has been enhanced in major way but people still
    > spread FUD on the cdrtools project....
    >


    My personal opinion is that many had the same impression that I did...
    so maybe this thread has helped some people to better understand things
    (??).



  7. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    In article <1194280980.8972.140.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.co m>,
    Chris Cox wrote:

    >> There is and always was _one_ cdrecord source and a limited OSS distribution
    >> that did visibly evolve.
    >>
    >> I did always make clear what the background of that decision has been.

    >
    >Thanks again Joerg... but I'm pretty sure I was not the only one with
    >the completely wrong impression of the situation. Again.. probably just
    >a communication problem.. but man... talk about getting things wrong.


    My impression is that the main problem is FUD spread by people who have been
    confused by FUD from other people who are the initiators of the problem.
    I am not sure about the intentions of these initiators, they do not know FROSS
    for long.

    It is strange to see that too many people believed these guys although I am a
    long term OSS supporter while their main claim was that I don't like OSS.


    >> Unfortunately, there have been many trolls who spread dissinformation in order
    >> to harm the project. Then there was a person called "Bernhard Rosenkrnzer" who
    >> published a defective variant of cdrtools in February 2001. He called it a
    >> "fork" but the only work on the source was to first nake it 100% nonportable
    >> and then trying to fix the selfmade bugs. In September 2006 Mr. Eduard Bloch
    >> did the same. Both "forks" died after less than a year.

    >
    >Ok... but I tell you my intent was not the spreading of FUD, and I hope
    >that you can at least see (maybe) why I was somewhat confused over
    >the matter.


    I hope to see you on the OSS side and on the side of the users un future...

    >>
    >>
    >> In the past time, cdrtools has been enhanced in major way but people still
    >> spread FUD on the cdrtools project....
    >>

    >
    >My personal opinion is that many had the same impression that I did...
    >so maybe this thread has helped some people to better understand things
    >(??).


    It was caused by the FUD of few people. The bad thing is that OSS community
    has been reached by this FUD.

    OSS today is suffering from interests of commercial companies and it seems
    that these companies do not like OSS projects that are managed by strong
    maintainers. They cannot influence huge projects like Linux (the kernel) but
    they try to do with medium to large sized projects.

    I hope that the OSS community will survive this and that maintaiers that act
    to the benefit of the users are not attacked as I have been.


    --
    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

  8. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > [...]
    > It was caused by the FUD of few people. The bad thing is that OSS community
    > has been reached by this FUD.


    The FUD doesn't seem to be the reason of the fork. The reason for the
    fork sounded pretty valid. It's always sad when it happens like that,
    but it looks like the fork was needed to guarantee commercial usage of
    the software.

    You, on the other hand, claim that there is no licensing problem.
    Frankly, I simply don't believe that and think that you are mistaken.
    It's hard to imagine that the world created such a conspiracy just to
    damage your project. They don't really care about your project. They
    simply want something that works and that they can sell without "small
    print" or possible copyright problems, even if it's not really certain
    if there *are* in fact problems. They will take the word of their
    lawyers over yours.

    My personal opinion is that changing the license was a fatal mistake,
    and I hope your project won't become another XFree86.


    > OSS today is suffering from interests of commercial companies and it seems
    > that these companies do not like OSS projects that are managed by strong
    > maintainers. They cannot influence huge projects like Linux (the kernel) but
    > they try to do with medium to large sized projects.


    That's not a bad thing. Projects need input from commercial companies,
    and also need to satisfy commercial users too, and the only way to do
    that is to listen to their needs and adapt the code if possible.

    Anyway, your point of view was that the new license gives for freedom to
    the user than the GPL:

    "Freedom in terms of OpenSource is freedom to use the code, freedom to
    modify the code, freedom to publish modified versions and the freedom to
    use a well maintained piece of software.

    You get this freedom from the original cdrtools packages but not from
    it's clones."

    The GPL grants all of that. Where's the "more freedom" in the new
    license? Sounds like a lie to me, sorry. Also, you're attacking the
    GPL with those words, and to my ears, that's FUD too.

  9. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    In article ,
    Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
    >Joerg Schilling wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> It was caused by the FUD of few people. The bad thing is that OSS community
    >> has been reached by this FUD.

    >
    >The FUD doesn't seem to be the reason of the fork. The reason for the
    >fork sounded pretty valid. It's always sad when it happens like that,
    >but it looks like the fork was needed to guarantee commercial usage of
    >the software.


    You believe that missing will for collaboratoion at Debian's side is
    a valid reson for forking? Ware you kidding?

    If you believe that suse needs the right to publish broken variants of
    cdrecord, that you seem to have a real stange way of thinking.


    >You, on the other hand, claim that there is no licensing problem.
    >Frankly, I simply don't believe that and think that you are mistaken.


    There is no license problem and the people around Bloch have not been
    able to verify a license problem. You are not even willing to think
    about the problem but spread FUD, please stop this!


    >My personal opinion is that changing the license was a fatal mistake,
    >and I hope your project won't become another XFree86.


    Why is it a mistake to give _more_ freedom to the users of a software?



    >Anyway, your point of view was that the new license gives for freedom to
    >the user than the GPL:
    >
    >"Freedom in terms of OpenSource is freedom to use the code, freedom to
    >modify the code, freedom to publish modified versions and the freedom to
    >use a well maintained piece of software.
    >
    >You get this freedom from the original cdrtools packages but not from
    >it's clones."
    >
    >The GPL grants all of that. Where's the "more freedom" in the new
    >license? Sounds like a lie to me, sorry. Also, you're attacking the
    >GPL with those words, and to my ears, that's FUD too.



    Wrong: YOU are spreading FUD that harms the GPL. I did not attack the GPL.
    The GPL cannot _grant_ you that the fork is maintained because the fork
    is a result of dull hate from Mr. Bloch, and because hate does not create
    free software, the fork is dead since more than 6 months.

    Software that is created from real interest in free software on the other
    side is maintained for a long time and so is the original software.

    --
    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: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > Software that is created from real interest in free software on the other
    > side is maintained for a long time and so is the original software.


    here I only partly agree. Software is not created from real interest in
    free software. It is created because there is a need for it. Doing it
    open instead of closed is just a way to do it.

    The fact that it is open is a tool, not a goal. At least that is how it
    should be.

    The fact that the goal is to solve a need will, depending on that need,
    attract more or less developers and having it open is a great way to do
    so.

    houghi
    --
    Listen do you hear them drawing near in their search for the sinners?
    Feeding on the power of our fear and the evil within us.
    Incarnation of Satan's creation of all that we dread.
    When the demons arrive those alive would be better off dead!

  11. Re: K3b and OpenSuse 10.3

    Joerg Schilling wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
    >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
    >>> It was caused by the FUD of few people. [...]

    >> The FUD doesn't seem to be the reason of the fork. The reason for the
    >> fork sounded pretty valid. It's always sad when it happens like that,
    >> but it looks like the fork was needed to guarantee commercial usage of
    >> the software.

    >
    > You believe that missing will for collaboratoion at Debian's side is
    > a valid reson for forking? Ware you kidding?


    Of course not, but the license change was a valid reason, and perhaps
    was to be expected considering Debian's campaign against the CDDL.
    That's why I think that changing the license was a mistake. You could
    have always dual-license it, IMHO. Since you're the copyright holder,
    you would have that right even if turns out that the CDDL is not
    GPL-compatible. However, *are* you the copyright holder of everything
    in cdrtools?

    And if the CDDL is compatible with the GPL, it means that I can
    distribute cdrtools under the GPL if I want. To do this, I will simply
    delete the CDDL text from the package and replace it with the GPL. If
    this is not an allowable thing to do, then it means the CDDL is not
    GPL-compatible, but if it is allowable, I don't see the point to switch
    from the GPL to another license in the first place.

    Please think about what I just said.


    > If you believe that suse needs the right to publish broken variants of
    > cdrecord, that you seem to have a real stange way of thinking.


    They want something that is GPL. The CDDL is usually accompanied by
    "but some people think" on every online discussion of the license. It
    creates uncertainty if a project switches from GPL to CDDL. Maybe
    Debian is to blame for that uncertainty, but in the end it doesn't
    really matter who's to blame. The end user suffers because of the more
    widely used broken fork, and this is the result of a war that originated
    from Debian *and* you.


    >> You, on the other hand, claim that there is no licensing problem.
    >> Frankly, I simply don't believe that and think that you are mistaken.

    >
    > There is no license problem and the people around Bloch have not been
    > able to verify a license problem.


    Perhaps they don't feel the need to verify a license problem, because
    they know that the GPL (at least v2) works and is 100% accepted by the
    distributors, while there is some uncertainty around the CDDL.

    It should have been clear to you that if a distributor has a choice
    between the GPL and CDDL, the GPL will be chosen. Debian doesn't have
    the power to impose decisions upon, say, Red Hat and Novell. It was
    their own choice to use the broken fork instead of the original, and
    that just shows that the GPLv2 is *the* license most distributors (and
    their lawyers) are most comfortable with.


    > You are not even willing to think
    > about the problem but spread FUD, please stop this!


    I am thinking about the problem. My own personal conclusion is that it
    was a mistake to change the license, simply because we know that the GPL
    works and is accepted.

    Please don't be offended; everyone has the right to chose whatever damn
    copyright license he wishes for the work he creates. No one has the
    right to deny/criticize that right. (Assuming of course you indeed own
    the copyright of everything in your project.) However, that's not the
    point here. The point is that not only Debian has people that are not
    sure about the CDDL. You should have known that. You have the right of
    course to change the license, but everyone else also has the right to
    fork the project and keep the old license if she feels that the new
    license *might* impose problems, even if that's not necessarily the case.

    I suspect a change back to GPL is out of the question? If you claim
    that the CDDL is compatible to the GPL, then does it really matter if
    you keep the GPL?


    >> My personal opinion is that changing the license was a fatal mistake,
    >> and I hope your project won't become another XFree86.

    >
    > Why is it a mistake to give _more_ freedom to the users of a software?


    It doesn't seem to grant more freedom, but rather seems to impose
    restrictions to the ones who modify it that could be incompatible with
    the GPL.

    I am not a lawyer though and I don't think there are court cases to
    confirm this.


    >> Anyway, your point of view was that the new license gives for freedom to
    >> the user than the GPL:
    >>
    >> "Freedom in terms of OpenSource is freedom to use the code, freedom to
    >> modify the code, freedom to publish modified versions and the freedom to
    >> use a well maintained piece of software.
    >>
    >> You get this freedom from the original cdrtools packages but not from
    >> it's clones."
    >>
    >> The GPL grants all of that. Where's the "more freedom" in the new
    >> license? Sounds like a lie to me, sorry. Also, you're attacking the
    >> GPL with those words, and to my ears, that's FUD too.

    >
    >
    > Wrong: YOU are spreading FUD that harms the GPL. I did not attack the GPL.
    > The GPL cannot _grant_ you that the fork is maintained because the fork
    > is a result of dull hate from Mr. Bloch, and because hate does not create
    > free software, the fork is dead since more than 6 months.


    Can we have a clarification about how and when and under which
    circumstances the CDDL grants more freedom to the user than the GPL?


    > Software that is created from real interest in free software on the other
    > side is maintained for a long time and so is the original software.


    That's not true. I can write down an endless list of software created
    out of honest interest in free software but still failed horribly and
    suffered a quick death.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3