On Aug 22, 12:03 pm, Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> josh wrote:
> > try k3b and see what happens is another burner i like it.
>
> K3b had the same problem, ( or worse ) after installing
> another cdrecord version as Joerg Shilling told,
> the first test went OK now :-)
>
> Edmund

Please send in a bug report on the debian package you used. If you
don't, it's a risk that it won't be fixed.

Good luck.

In article <1189036627.214779.276490@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
AJackson <anders.jackson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 22, 12:03 pm, Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> josh wrote:
>> > try k3b and see what happens is another burner i like it.
>>
>> K3b had the same problem, ( or worse ) after installing
>> another cdrecord version as Joerg Shilling told,
>> the first test went OK now :-)
>>
>> Edmund
>
>Please send in a bug report on the debian package you used. If you
>don't, it's a risk that it won't be fixed.

Debian has no cdrtools package and the "cdrkit" package is dead since 4 months.

It is unlikely that a bug report will change things on Debian unless you ask
Debian to go back again to 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

On Sep 6, 1:04 pm, j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> In article <1189036627.214779.276...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
>
> AJackson <anders.jack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 22, 12:03 pm, Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> josh wrote:
> >> > try k3b and see what happens is another burner i like it.
>
> >> K3b had the same problem, ( or worse ) after installing
> >> another cdrecord version as Joerg Shilling told,
> >> the first test went OK now :-)
>
> >> Edmund
>
> >Please send in a bug report on the debian package you used. If you
> >don't, it's a risk that it won't be fixed.
>
> Debian has no cdrtools package and the "cdrkit" package is dead since 4 months.

Yes, I know that Debian doesn't have cdrtools, but have a link for
"back compatibility" to wodim.
It doesn't look dead since 4 month when I looked[1][2].

> It is unlikely that a bug report will change things on Debian unless you ask
> Debian to go back again to the original software.

As you are part in a long going "issue" with Debian about, qhat I
understand, patches to your cdrtools that
you guard so well, I won't go into this any further with you (as I am
but an observer and don't know every
part of the problem that lead to a fork of cdrecord).

Yours
A Jackson

[1] http://www.cdrkit.org/
[2] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/debburn

In article <1189086392.929612.75520@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>,
AJackson <anders.jackson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Please send in a bug report on the debian package you used. If you
>> >don't, it's a risk that it won't be fixed.
>>
>> Debian has no cdrtools package and the "cdrkit" package is dead since 4 months.
>
>Yes, I know that Debian doesn't have cdrtools, but have a link for
>"back compatibility" to wodim.

It isn't compatible as it e.g. does not autoformat maiden DVD+RW
It does not properly DVD, it does not support BluRay and it does
not support as much CDRWIN cue sheet features. There are a lot of other
missing features, e.g. no find(1) built into mkisofs, no extended UDF support,
no RockRidge V-1.12 support, no support for files > 4 GB.......

see http://cdrecord.berlios.de/new/private/linux-dist.html

>It doesn't look dead since 4 month when I looked[1][2].

If you did really look at these URLs, you would of course know that
it is dead since 4 months.

>> It is unlikely that a bug report will change things on Debian unless you ask
>> Debian to go back again to the original software.
>
>As you are part in a long going "issue" with Debian about, qhat I
>understand, patches to your cdrtools that
>you guard so well, I won't go into this any further with you (as I am
>but an observer and don't know every
>part of the problem that lead to a fork of cdrecord).

These people have problems with minimal quality standards. I cannot accept
patches that would obviously introduce bugs into my 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

On Sep 7, 12:38 am, j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> In article <1189086392.929612.75...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>,
>
> AJackson <anders.jack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Please send in a bug report on the debian package you used. If you
> >> >don't, it's a risk that it won't be fixed.
>
> >> Debian has no cdrtools package and the "cdrkit" package is dead since 4 months.
>
> >Yes, I know that Debian doesn't have cdrtools, but have a link for
> >"back compatibility" to wodim.
>
> It isn't compatible as it e.g. does not autoformat maiden DVD+RW
> It does not properly DVD, it does not support BluRay and it does
> not support as much CDRWIN cue sheet features. There are a lot of other
> missing features, e.g. no find(1) built into mkisofs, no extended UDF support,
> no RockRidge V-1.12 support, no support for files > 4 GB.......
>
> seehttp://cdrecord.berlios.de/new/private/linux-dist.html
>
> >It doesn't look dead since 4 month when I looked[1][2].
>
> If you did really look at these URLs, you would of course know that
> it is dead since 4 months.
>
> >> It is unlikely that a bug report will change things on Debian unless you ask
> >> Debian to go back again to the original software.
>
> >As you are part in a long going "issue" with Debian about, qhat I
> >understand, patches to your cdrtools that
> >you guard so well, I won't go into this any further with you (as I am
> >but an observer and don't know every
> >part of the problem that lead to a fork of cdrecord).
>
> These people have problems with minimal quality standards. I cannot accept
> patches that would obviously introduce bugs into my software.

Those issues was about licences, if I remember right.
You might have fixed those bugs now. But that was an issue for Debian
and free software.

Yours, A Jackson

In article <1190425299.381079.12080@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
AJackson <anders.jackson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> These people have problems with minimal quality standards. I cannot accept
>> patches that would obviously introduce bugs into my software.
>
>Those issues was about licences, if I remember right.
>You might have fixed those bugs now. But that was an issue for Debian
>and free software.

An interesting view but it is nonsense:

Cdrtools is of course free software.


Distributions that asked a lawyer _do_ redistribute the original cdrtools
because they know that there is neither an issue with "free" nor with the
license.

Debian makes a decision on hate based claims from laymen....

--
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

On 09/22/2007 03:17 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> In article <1190425299.381079.12080@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
> AJackson <anders.jackson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> These people have problems with minimal quality standards. I cannot accept
>>> patches that would obviously introduce bugs into my software.
>> Those issues was about licences, if I remember right.
>> You might have fixed those bugs now. But that was an issue for Debian
>> and free software.
>
> An interesting view but it is nonsense:
>
> Cdrtools is of course free software.
>

Irrelevant and untrue.

That's irrelevant because the issue is not whether cdrtools is free or
not; the issue is whether the license governing most of its code (CDDL)
is compatible with a license governing parts of its code (GPL).

Your statement is untrue because the incompatibility arising from your
decision to mingle CDDL and GPL'd code has made your software legally
non-distributable; it's not free if it's illegal to distribute the software.

>
> Distributions that asked a lawyer _do_ redistribute the original cdrtools
> because they know that there is neither an issue with "free" nor with the
> license.

What distributions are you talking about, and how do you know they
talked to lawyers?

>
> Debian makes a decision on hate based claims from laymen....
>

Your claim that Debian made the decision to fork cdrtools based on
animosity and ignorance is ludicrous. The FSF (creator of the GPL) says
that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL¹. Management figures at Sun
Microsystems (creators of the CDDL) say that the CDDL is incompatible
with the GPL².

For virtually everyone but you, the argument over the compatibility
between the two licenses is over. Debian had no choice but to fork.
Cdrtools, under its current licensing scheme, cannot be legally
distributed; Debian can't even include cdrtools in its non-free section,
and Debian users do need a CD-burning application.

Please stop using red herrings such as "CDDL is opensource" or "CDDL is
accepted by Debian." The issue is that a program cannot contain both GPL
and CDDL codes that link with one another, and that's what the current
cdrtools is.

By distributing cdrtools (in its current form), you are violating the
GPL; if Debian were to do so, they'd also be in violation.

I suspect you enjoy the drama, so I don't expect things to change much.
But you could end the drama over your program by placing it under the
GPL. Or you could rewrite the GPL'd parts yourself, remove all GPL'd
code and place the entire cdrtools under the CDDL.

Of course, I know that there's no chance you'll do anything reasonable
to stop this controversy.

--------
¹ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL

In article <13fbmi1d9na493c@corp.supernews.com>,
Tofus <tofus-88652+usenet@mypacks.net> wrote:

>> Cdrtools is of course free software.
>>
>
>Irrelevant and untrue.

You are spreading FUD!

>That's irrelevant because the issue is not whether cdrtools is free or
>not; the issue is whether the license governing most of its code (CDDL)
>is compatible with a license governing parts of its code (GPL).

This is FUD!

Let me remove the rest of your lies you just wrote to harm free software like
cdrtools and explain things in a single block.

The GPL is an _asymmectric_ license that forbids to use GPLd code from within
_other_ code.

The GPL does _not_ forbid to use non-GPLd code from within GPLd code.


In cdrtools, no GPL code is used from non-GPLd code.
In cdrtools no non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code.

A asume that you did never read the GPL text but instead read incorrect
FAQs on the GPL that try to explain the GPL using the inapropriate term
"linking". The GPL text does not contain the term "linking", as it is entirely
based on the copyright term "derived work".

The GPL allows _any_ type of linking as long as no new derived work based
on GPL code is created.

Cdrtools are of course redistributable and the distributions that redistibute
cdrtools did ask lawyers that confirmed there is no problem!

Debian based it's decision on the "legal opinion" from laymen like Armstrong and
Bloch. No Lawyer did ever claim there is a problem....

The law professor Eben Moglen explained why this kind of using GPLd code is no
problem in general in his talk at the first GPLv3 press conference. Do you
believe that laymen know more than law professors?

Well, Bloch in his arrogance did also claim he knows better than me (the Author)
how cdrecord works...

Are you just a victim of these people or are you interested in actively harming
free software like cdrtools?

--
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