Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #3615 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-07 20:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-03-21 14:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 20:15 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 06:03 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 23:33 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-07 23:40 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 22:10 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-08 22:07 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:07 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-23 10:08 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-24 05:04 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 11:04 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Loki Harfagr <l0k1@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> - 2012-01-25 18:33 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-25 20:17 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-25 21:37 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-25 22:32 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-26 01:33 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 07:56 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 09:26 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 22:43 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-01-27 00:43 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-26 20:08 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 22:55 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 18:15 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-27 07:55 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 07:51 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-27 09:29 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:35 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-27 22:45 +0100
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-26 18:58 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2012-01-27 07:22 -0600
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:47 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:47 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-27 22:03 +0100
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-27 21:54 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-28 00:00 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-28 01:32 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-28 01:54 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-29 08:01 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-29 19:09 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> - 2012-01-31 17:57 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-31 21:12 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-01-27 16:44 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 16:39 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? lynxuser@mouse-potato.com - 2012-01-27 14:17 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Baho Utot <baho-utot@invlaid.com> - 2012-01-27 09:44 -0500
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Feranija <feranija@mouse-potato.com> - 2012-01-27 07:02 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-27 20:53 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:54 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:43 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-21 18:02 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-21 17:30 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-21 23:01 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-22 04:10 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 07:19 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:51 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 17:46 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-23 04:45 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-23 04:47 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2013-03-23 21:26 +0530
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 18:05 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:57 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 01:30 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-03-23 02:40 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 13:33 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 10:41 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 15:29 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 11:57 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-23 17:24 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 19:02 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-23 20:00 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 23:22 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 19:44 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 23:56 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 20:36 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 18:02 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 11:48 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 13:35 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 11:59 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 13:09 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 17:14 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 13:33 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-03-23 17:58 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 14:19 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 19:18 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2013-03-23 19:18 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-23 17:25 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 00:05 +0200
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 23:39 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-24 16:04 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 13:46 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-03-24 19:07 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 17:06 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 21:20 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Fedora bug tracking Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2013-03-24 20:08 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Fedora bug tracking Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-25 09:59 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 22:17 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 23:07 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-25 09:57 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 22:35 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <njsg@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-24 23:03 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:42 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:31 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> (Nuno Silva) - 2013-03-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:29 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 23:34 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 19:58 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:31 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 08:56 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-30 12:06 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-30 13:24 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-24 17:46 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 15:53 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 21:45 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-24 21:51 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 20:53 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-03-25 08:32 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-03-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-23 17:13 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 18:44 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-03-24 04:15 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-24 11:34 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-03-22 18:39 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-03-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 16:25 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-23 18:39 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-23 16:37 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-21 17:23 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-22 17:58 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-03-22 17:53 -0400
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-23 09:20 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:35 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-01-25 23:28 +0100
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-01-26 07:41 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:31 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:23 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Todd <Todd@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-26 10:38 -0800
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2012-01-08 15:50 +0000
Re: Why are mkisofs ISO's so large? Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de - 2013-03-21 14:06 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-24 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kinp3u$rgb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7630 |
In article <AZG3t.171578$O52.57703@newsfe10.iad>,
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>Yes, what cause is it? He states that the user should try the cdrtools
>to solve his problem. Apparently it did. He also states that cdrkit uses
>and ancient (7 year old) version of cdrtools. It does. He states that
>people have trouble with cdrkit. This thread bears testament to that.
From September 2004 'till now, already 8.5 years did pass.
This person who identifies as Octothorpe@invalid.com does not seem to be
interested in the truth and he did not yet send a useful statement. I am not
sure whether it mase sense to care about him.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-25 08:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87obe7op63.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7630 |
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote: >> You see he did it again he comes here to introduce a battle and we >> now have one. > > He is NOT introduce the battle. He came here to help someone who was > having trouble. He did. Actually he started the current iteration of this particular thread by replying to an article from over a year ago. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kikknj$ebq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7571 |
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > In article <icli9fcmgm.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: >>Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes: > >>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend >>> wodim... >> >>50% failure rate? > > This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools > after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software. > > There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim > because they don't use it. > You should better stop those idiotic lies, Jörg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Col3t.346445$kp4.200771@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #7571 |
On 2013-03-23, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > In article <icli9fcmgm.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >>Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes: > >>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim... >> >>50% failure rate? > > This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools > after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software. Well, that could be a selection effect. It is users that have trouble that will tend to search out an alternative and go to the effort of switching. Thus some could be perfectly happy with wodim, chalking up the occasional failure to bad harware (blank disks), and others who own different hardware (dvd writers) get much higher failure rates. Thus Octathorpe's "I don;t have any problems". (on that basis of course we would never have insurance, or a medical plan, or seatbelts, or safer cars-- "I own an Edsel and I have never had any problems" ). As Shiling points out, the number of changes to wodim since he wrote it 8 years ago have been very small. Does anyone believe that there has been no changes in dvd writing hardware in that time? Or that Shilling wrote such wonderful software that no changes have been needed in that time ( even though cdrtools has changed significantly-- written by that same great software writer). > > There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they > don't use it. > And also people who do not have problems because it works on their system most of the time. It would be interesting if the user who started this thread were to use mkisofs, rather that genisofs to see if his problem of the latter generating huge files is fixed in mkisofs. I do not think any of us know that the latter is what caused his problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kikt5v$ghm$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7585 |
In article <Col3t.346445$kp4.200771@newsfe09.iad>,
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>It would be interesting if the user who started this thread were to use
>mkisofs, rather that genisofs to see if his problem of the latter
>generating huge files is fixed in mkisofs. I do not think any of us know
>that the latter is what caused his problem.
This person mentioned that the problem did go away after switching to the real
mkisofs.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-24 04:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkksveh.oll.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #7571 |
On 2013-03-23, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > In article <icli9fcmgm.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >>Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes: > >>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim... >> >>50% failure rate? > > This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools > after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software. > > There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they > don't use it. There are also many people who use wodim frequently and find it works quite reliably. I use wodim to burn three DVDs per week as system backups. Each DVD is verified twice with 'diff'--once with the drive that burned it and once with a different drive. If I counted correctly from my journal, there was not a single verification failure in the past 16 weeks since I installed Mageia 2. (Yes, I do record if/when there is a burn or verification failure.) 48 successful burns/verifications with zero failures is pretty strong evidence against any claim of in-general 50% failure. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-24 11:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kimobc$l2o$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7610 |
In article <slrnkksveh.oll.spamtrap42@one.localnet>,
Robert Riches <spamtrap42@verizon.net> wrote:
>I use wodim to burn three DVDs per week as system backups. Each
>DVD is verified twice with 'diff'--once with the drive that
>burned it and once with a different drive. If I counted
>correctly from my journal, there was not a single verification
>failure in the past 16 weeks since I installed Mageia 2. (Yes, I
>do record if/when there is a burn or verification failure.)
Once the filesystem code in Linux is cleaned up, it will no longer support the
defects in the filesystems created by "genisoimage".... be careful.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-22 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kii60h$a8h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7522 |
In article <HWH2t.165667$O52.92917@newsfe10.iad>,
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2013-03-21, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>> In article <87y5sup6q5.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,
>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>>>
>>>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>>>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>>>(in general) based on the kernel.
>
>Being "based on" is not sufficient. Moby Dick is based on the Bible, but
>is not a derivative work of the Bible. On the other hand Gone with the
>Wind is based on the novel of that name ( with substantial differences)
>but a court has ruled that the copyright on the book applies to the
>movie.
>The big problem is that "derivtive work" is an extremely ill defined
>term in copyright law, which of course means that barrack room lawyers
>can have a field day, unconstrained by anything.
You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard Kettlewell",
but you are right that with respect to certain interpretations, "derivative
work" may be defined too weak. On the other side, this usually does not hit
problems in the software area.
>> And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make
>> that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it.
>
>That would be a very strange definition of derivative work.
But this is exactly what Debian is using when attacking OSS projects.
Background:
- When Debian started their attacks, they claimed that cdrecord had a
GPL license problem even though cdrecord was entirely compiled from
code under GPL.
- Later after cdrecord was made 100% CDDL, Debian continued to claim
that there is a GPL problem in cdrecord.
- Some years later, Debian realized that they were telling nonsense
and complained about the fact that mkisofs (a progam under GPL) is
using libraries under CDDL.
As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than
cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just
using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just
attempts to attack OpenSource.
>> In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect
>> customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17
>> paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition
>> of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the
>> related text in the GPL is illegal and void.
>
>Derivative work is defined in law, and no contract or license cah
>redefine it if the force of the contract or license comes from the
>copyright act. Of course, in a contract you can make any claims you
>want, and if the other party agrees, then, assuming it is not explicitly
>illegal, it can be enforced under copyright law. But certainly neither
>the GPL or CDDL are contracts.
In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business
conditions" apply to protect customers).
>Thus those sections under the GPL which may appear to define derivative
>work ( they do not use that term) are their interpretation of how the
>law would apply to them and their license. Unfortuantely or otherwise,
>it is the courts that determine such things, not the license writer. And
>since the license is one sided (ie is not agreed to by the two parties,
>but is imposed by one) it will tend to interpreted as liberally for the
>licensee as possible. Since the licensor had the opportunity to make the
>license clear, any ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person
>who did not have that opportunity.
This are the rules in Europe for contracts were "business conditions" apply.
>Ie, the related text in the GPL is NOT illegal. It is simply irrelevant,
>and at best expresses their understanding of the meaning of the legal
>terms, a understanding a court is free to disagree with.
This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-)
>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
>GPL and CDDL are incompatible.
The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files.
You can mix code from different files under different licenses as long as
one of the license is not the GPL. If you are however talking about a program
ans a library, this are two different works that can be under different
licenses even if one of them is the GPL. The latter is done in cdrtools for
"mkisofs".
>GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does GPL
>and CDDL.
Very true!
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-22 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87y5dfwa7e.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7547 |
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes: > You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard > Kettlewell", ...over a year ago. Don’t you have anything better to do than resurrect long-dead threads? -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-22 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LI43t.14389$N52.5609@newsfe01.iad> |
| In reply to | #7547 |
On 2013-03-22, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > In article <HWH2t.165667$O52.92917@newsfe10.iad>, > unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: >>On 2013-03-21, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: >>> In article <87y5sup6q5.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>, >>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill >>>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which >>>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works? >>>> >>>>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is >>>>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not >>>>(in general) based on the kernel. >> >>Being "based on" is not sufficient. Moby Dick is based on the Bible, but >>is not a derivative work of the Bible. On the other hand Gone with the >>Wind is based on the novel of that name ( with substantial differences) >>but a court has ruled that the copyright on the book applies to the >>movie. >>The big problem is that "derivtive work" is an extremely ill defined >>term in copyright law, which of course means that barrack room lawyers >>can have a field day, unconstrained by anything. > > You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard Kettlewell", > but you are right that with respect to certain interpretations, "derivative > work" may be defined too weak. On the other side, this usually does not hit > problems in the software area. The problem is not whether it is too weak or too strong. the problem is that it is almost completely undefined, which leaves the issue up to the wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed that all Linux was a derivative work of their work. > > >>> And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make >>> that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it. >> >>That would be a very strange definition of derivative work. > > But this is exactly what Debian is using when attacking OSS projects. > > Background: > > - When Debian started their attacks, they claimed that cdrecord had a > GPL license problem even though cdrecord was entirely compiled from > code under GPL. > > - Later after cdrecord was made 100% CDDL, Debian continued to claim > that there is a GPL problem in cdrecord. > > - Some years later, Debian realized that they were telling nonsense > and complained about the fact that mkisofs (a progam under GPL) is > using libraries under CDDL. > > As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than > cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just > using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just > attempts to attack OpenSource. The question could be "Is a work which incorporates/links with a library a derivative work of that library. (Thus any work which runs on a linux computer would be a derivative work of the kernel which is GPL2). Such a broad interpretation would make software impossible, but it cannot be ruled out that that is how a court could decide. > > >>> In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect >>> customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17 >>> paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition >>> of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the >>> related text in the GPL is illegal and void. >> >>Derivative work is defined in law, and no contract or license cah >>redefine it if the force of the contract or license comes from the >>copyright act. Of course, in a contract you can make any claims you >>want, and if the other party agrees, then, assuming it is not explicitly >>illegal, it can be enforced under copyright law. But certainly neither >>the GPL or CDDL are contracts. > > In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business > conditions" apply to protect customers). I am dubious, since there is no agreement, and agreement is crucial for contracts. Licenses can be imposed unilaterally. > >>Thus those sections under the GPL which may appear to define derivative >>work ( they do not use that term) are their interpretation of how the >>law would apply to them and their license. Unfortuantely or otherwise, >>it is the courts that determine such things, not the license writer. And >>since the license is one sided (ie is not agreed to by the two parties, >>but is imposed by one) it will tend to interpreted as liberally for the >>licensee as possible. Since the licensor had the opportunity to make the >>license clear, any ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person >>who did not have that opportunity. > > This are the rules in Europe for contracts were "business conditions" apply. > >>Ie, the related text in the GPL is NOT illegal. It is simply irrelevant, >>and at best expresses their understanding of the meaning of the legal >>terms, a understanding a court is free to disagree with. > > This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-) It IS similar. It is not identical, since under the LGPL you explicitly have more rights to copy. Whether those rights would be found by a court to be also there for GPL is of course part of the ambiguity of derivative work. > >>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the >>GPL and CDDL are incompatible. > > The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files. No idea what this means. You can apply the GPL to whatever you want to apply it to (assuming you own the copyright). This certainly does not make them incompatible. > > You can mix code from different files under different licenses as long as > one of the license is not the GPL. If you are however talking about a program ??? No idea again what this means. It does seem to be based on a certain reading of "derivative work". If work C is made up of A and B and B is a GPL work, is C a derivative work of B? I suspect it depends on how tight the dependence of C is on B. But again, since there exists no real definiton of what derivative work means, this question is unanswerable. > ans a library, this are two different works that can be under different > licenses even if one of them is the GPL. The latter is done in cdrtools for > "mkisofs". It depends on whether or not the result is a derivative work. If not, then I agree. If so, then I guess the whole would be. But that would make the whole a derivative work of the kernel as well. And since all computers have bioses which are not GPL, it would mean that linux could not be run on any computer. > >>GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does GPL >>and CDDL. > > Very true! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kikl2d$vg3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7560 |
In article <LI43t.14389$N52.5609@newsfe01.iad>,
unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to
>determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed
>that all Linux was a derivative work of their work.
Well, this was a claim of a company named "Cladery Linux" after they changed
their name to SCO ;-)
>> As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than
>> cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just
>> using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just
>> attempts to attack OpenSource.
>
>The question could be "Is a work which incorporates/links with a library
>a derivative work of that library. (Thus any work which runs on a linux
>computer would be a derivative work of the kernel which is GPL2). Such a
>broad interpretation would make software impossible, but it cannot be
>ruled out that that is how a court could decide.
As Linux just implements interfaces that have been designed by others (UNIX),
Linux cannot claim rights on the interfaces. Programs communicate with the
kernel using this interface, I see no way to define programs as derivative work
of the Linux kernel as they do not contain code from the kernel.
But while people may under some circumstances believe that a program has become
a derivative work of a library used by that program....
...only Debian has the impertinence to claim that a library becomes a derivative
work of a program just because the program calls functions from that library.
This is like the tail wags the dog...
I like to understand, how those people from Debian managed to convince even a
single person to believe this kind of rubbish they invented as the "base" for
attacking cdrtools.
>> In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business
>> conditions" apply to protect customers).
>
>I am dubious, since there is no agreement, and agreement is crucial for
>contracts. Licenses can be imposed unilaterally.
There is not such specific legal constructtion. A contract is a contract but
if not both sides are able to influence the content of a contrect, the
specific law for business conditions apply and limits the influence on the
customer.
>> This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-)
>
>It IS similar. It is not identical, since under the LGPL you explicitly
>have more rights to copy. Whether those rights would be found by a court
>to be also there for GPL is of course part of the ambiguity of
>derivative work.
Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that cannot
stand in court.
>>>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
>>>GPL and CDDL are incompatible.
>>
>> The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files.
>
>No idea what this means. You can apply the GPL to whatever you want to
>apply it to (assuming you own the copyright). This certainly does not
>make them incompatible.
The GPL defines the limit of a "work" (which is the scope for a specific
entity) to be the "work", the CDDL defines it to be a file, the BSD license
allows even code under a different license on a line by line base.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 13:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7r312a-367.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #7582 |
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:25:49 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote: > In article <LI43t.14389$N52.5609@newsfe01.iad>, > unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote: > >>wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to >>determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed >>that all Linux was a derivative work of their work. > > Well, this was a claim of a company named "Cladery Linux" after they > changed their name to SCO ;-) Are you referring to Caldera ? [putolin] > > Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that cannot > stand in court. > You keep getting more and more absurd... GPL has been tested in court. You are become non relevant http://libburnia-project.org/ http://libburnia-project.org/wiki/Cdrskin cdrskin is the cdrecord compatibility middleware of libburn. Its paragon, cdrecord, is a powerful GPL'ed burn program included in Joerg Schilling's cdrtools. cdrskin strives to be a second source for the services traditionally provided by cdrecord. Currently it does CD-R and CD-RW this way. Overwriteable media DVD-RAM, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, and BD-RE are handled differently than with cdrecord-ProDVD in order to offer TAO- like single track recording. Sequential DVD-R[W], DVD+R, DVD+R DL, BD-R are handled like CD-R[W] with TAO and multi-session. Additionally cdrskin offers cdrecord-ProDVD-like mode DAO with DVD-R[W].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kikssr$ghm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7587 |
In article <7r312a-367.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that cannot
>> stand in court.
>>
>
>You keep getting more and more absurd... GPL has been tested in court.
You are either uninformed or a really bad troll.
The courts do not just only interpret the GPL as if the LGPL has been speficied.
Many of the reasons of judgement in addition contain an explicit statement that
says that the judge only looked at paragraph 2 or 3 in order to protect the
copyright owner from the claims in the rest of the GPL. It seems that the judges
try to avoid to call the GPL completely void as they know that the typical OSS
copyright owner does not understand the pitfalls of the GPL.
>
>You are become non relevant
>
>http://libburnia-project.org/
>http://libburnia-project.org/wiki/Cdrskin
This project does not support UDF (needed for DVDs and BluRays) and it still
has not sufficient relevance compared to cdrtools.
And BTW: it works only on a very limited number of platforms. Cdrtools run
nearly enywhere.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 16:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7dg12a-kh7.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #7592 |
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:39:23 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote: > In article <7r312a-367.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>, > Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote: > >>> Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that >>> cannot stand in court. >>> >>> >>You keep getting more and more absurd... GPL has been tested in court. > > You are either uninformed or a really bad troll. > > The courts do not just only interpret the GPL as if the LGPL has been > speficied. > Many of the reasons of judgement in addition contain an explicit > statement that says that the judge only looked at paragraph 2 or 3 in > order to protect the copyright owner from the claims in the rest of the > GPL. It seems that the judges try to avoid to call the GPL completely > void as they know that the typical OSS copyright owner does not > understand the pitfalls of the GPL. Really ever use google? Here you are making an ass out of yourself once again... From your own country no less.... The gpl-violations.org project was founded in 2004 by Harald Welte. Welte was a kernel developer who had been actively enforcing the GPL license on his netfilter/iptables code since late 2003. Since then, other developers have given gpl-Violations.org legal right to represent them. While the Software Freedom Law Center, an organisation with similar goals operates from the USA, gpl-violations.org operates from Germany, Welte's home country. The project has been credited with being the first to prove in court that the GPL is valid and that it will stand up in court. Project creator Harald Welte received the 2007 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, partly because of his work on gpl- violations.org. In 2002, MySQL AB sued Progress NuSphere for copyright and trademark infringement in United States district court. NuSphere had allegedly violated MySQL's copyright by linking MySQL's GPL'ed code with NuSphere Gemini table without being in compliance with the license. After a preliminary hearing before Judge Patti Saris on 27 February 2002, the parties entered settlement talks and eventually settled.[49] After the hearing, FSF commented that "Judge Saris made clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license."[50] In August 2003, the SCO Group stated that they believed the GPL to have no legal validity, and that they intended to pursue lawsuits over sections of code supposedly copied from SCO Unix into the Linux kernel. This was a problematic stand for them, as they had distributed Linux and other GPL'ed code in their Caldera OpenLinux distribution, and there is little evidence that they had any legal right to do so except under the terms of the GPL. For more information, see SCO-Linux controversies and SCO v. IBM. In April 2004, the netfilter/iptables project was granted a preliminary injunction against Sitecom Germany by Munich District Court after Sitecom refused to desist from distributing Netfilter's GPL'ed software in violation of the terms of the GPL. On July 2004, the German court confirmed this injunction as a final ruling against Sitecom.[51] The court's justification was that: Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available. Harald Welte was represented by ifrOSS co-founder Till Jaeger. This exactly mirrored the predictions given previously by the FSF's Eben Moglen. This ruling was important because it was the first time that a court had confirmed that violating terms of the GPL could effect copyright violation and established case law over the enforceability of the GPL version 2 under German law.[52] In May 2005, Daniel Wallace filed suit against the Free Software Foundation in the Southern District of Indiana, contending that the GPL is an illegal attempt to fix prices (at zero). The suit was dismissed in March 2006, on the grounds that Wallace had failed to state a valid anti- trust claim; the court noted that "the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers".[53] Wallace was denied the possibility of further amending his complaint, and was ordered to pay the FSF's legal expenses. On 8 September 2005, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the GPL was not material to a case dealing with trade secrets derived from GPL- licensed work.[54] Defendants argued that since it is impossible to maintain trade secrets while being compliant with GPL and distributing the work, they are not in breach of trade secrets. This argument was considered without ground. On 6 September 2006, the gpl-violations.org project prevailed in court litigation against D-Link Germany GmbH regarding D-Link's copyright- infringing use of parts of the Linux Kernel in storage devices they distributed.[55] The judgment provided legal precedent[dubious – discuss] that the GPL is valid, legally binding, and stands in German court.[56] In late 2007, the BusyBox developers and the Software Freedom Law Center embarked upon a program to gain GPL compliance from distributors of BusyBox in embedded systems, suing those who would not comply. These were claimed to be the first US uses of courts for enforcement of GPL obligations. See BusyBox GPL lawsuits. On 11 December 2008, the Free Software Foundation sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for copyright violations by its Linksys division, of the FSF's GPL- licensed coreutils, readline, Parted, Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, binutils, and GNU Debugger software packages, which Linksys distributes in the Linux firmware[57] of its WRT54G wireless routers, as well as numerous other devices including DSL and Cable modems, Network Attached Storage devices, Voice-Over-IP gateways, Virtual Private Network devices and a home theater/media player device.[58] After six years of repeated complaints to Cisco by the FSF, claims by Cisco that they would correct, or were correcting, their compliance problems (not providing complete copies of all source code and their modifications), of repeated new violations being discovered and reported with more products, and lack of action by Linksys (a process described on the FSF blog as a "five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole"[58]) the FSF took them to court. Cisco settled the case six months later by agreeing "to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys" to ensure compliance, "to notify previous recipients of Linksys products containing FSF programs of their rights under the GPL," to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website, and to make a monetary contribution to the FSF.[59] Looks like you are very good at making an ass of yourself! > > >>You are become non relevant >> >>http://libburnia-project.org/ http://libburnia-project.org/wiki/Cdrskin > > This project does not support UDF (needed for DVDs and BluRays) and it > still has not sufficient relevance compared to cdrtools. Really? Then how do you account for libburnia-project.org is an open-source software project for reading, mastering and writing optical discs. For now this means CD media, all DVD media, all BD media. "Sequential DVD-R[W], DVD+R, DVD+R DL, BD-R are handled like CD-R[W] with TAO and multi-session." and " Overwriteable media DVD-RAM, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, and BD-RE are handled" BD-R/BD-E is Blueray or don't you know that. From libburn web site front page.... "El Torito bootable images should be supported, both with and without emulation. [lorenzo] It should be possible to create HFS hybrid volumes for use on a Mac. http://developer.apple.com/technotes/fl/fl_36.html It should also be possible to create volumes with UDF extensions; this is the type of filesystem on a video DVD." Looks like your talking out your ass again. It would be great if you would just shut up and mind your own business, few folks want to be involved in your name calling/mud slinging toward other projects. Right or wrong no one cares. You said you piece and it is beyond tolerance. Quit pestering projects with your non sense. You would do well to develop cdrecord, This constant trying to save the world from you is tiresome. The world doesn't want to be saved so shut up and move along. If people want to use something other than your software so be it, it's not your choice, it is theirs. > > And BTW: it works only on a very limited number of platforms. Cdrtools > run nearly enywhere. Well this is comp.os.linux.misc so I don't see it runs on plarform x.y and z as a good thing. I use Linux and BSD BTW it works on both of those.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-21 17:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <abas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #7519 |
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:43:17 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote: > In article <87y5sup6q5.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>, > Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > >>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill >>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which >>> uses kernel calls as derivative works? >> >>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is >>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not >>(in general) based on the kernel. > > And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not > make that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that > calls it. > > Conclusion: a GPLd program can use any library under any lisnce as long > as that license does not disallow such a case. > > As an important hint: > > In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to > protect customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US > Copyright law title 17 paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is > permitted to make. The redifinition of the term "derivative work" is not > in that list and for this reason, the related text in the GPL is illegal > and void. > >>I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand >>it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both >>the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible. > > If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they do > for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that any > Linux distro includes software under various licenses. www.fsf.org is over there -->
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-22 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kii63i$a8h$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7525 |
In article <abas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote:
>> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they do
>> for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that any
>> Linux distro includes software under various licenses.
>
>
>www.fsf.org is over there -->
Well, a year ago, Richard Stallman told me to write to the current Debian
leader and expect help. It turned out that the current Debian leader is still
as stubborn as Debian acted 8 years ago.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-22 17:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fg0v1a-au5.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #7548 |
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:58:10 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote: > In article <abas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>, > Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote: > >>> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they >>> do for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that >>> any Linux distro includes software under various licenses. >> >> >>www.fsf.org is over there --> > > Well, a year ago, Richard Stallman told me to write to the current > Debian leader and expect help. It turned out that the current Debian > leader is still as stubborn as Debian acted 8 years ago. Maybe you should change your attitude, any way I don't believe anything you say as I have found you to post FUD and other nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-23 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kijs4u$anf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7558 |
On 22/03/13 21:53, Octothorpe wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:58:10 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote: > >> In article <abas1a-v44.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>, >> Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>>> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they >>>> do for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that >>>> any Linux distro includes software under various licenses. >>> >>> >>> www.fsf.org is over there --> >> >> Well, a year ago, Richard Stallman told me to write to the current >> Debian leader and expect help. It turned out that the current Debian >> leader is still as stubborn as Debian acted 8 years ago. > > Maybe you should change your attitude, any way I don't believe anything > you say as I have found you to post FUD and other nonsense. > To be fair, I have found Debian maintainers to have a lot of 'attitude' which is why I now run MINT. its far more up to date, it doesn't rebrand a two year old browser instead of giving me firefox..or take the attitude that if I am not prepared to compile entire distros from source, I shouldn't complain about other's efforts. and frankly it has less bugs due to being 'newer' than debian did due to using old 'upstream' sources. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-21 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kif5rt$bn3$7@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #3903 |
In article <jfr0up$cbr$1@dont-email.me>, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which
>rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a
>user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,
>but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
>cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
>distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
>"derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
>definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
>( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
>Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
>and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?
Probably because there is no legal problem but a social problem _inside_ Debian
that has to be solved.
--
EMail:joerg@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-25 23:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jfpvnk$q7j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3887 |
unruh wrote: > I do not dispute his right to be stubborn-- his producing the software > more than gives him the right to be so. I have a lot less sympathy for > the stubborness of the Debian people and all of the other distributions. > The key point is that the users suffer. I don't suffer at all. I have *never* run his version. And I did not miss anything > While one can download the > cdrtools and compile them, that in itself makes use by many users highly > unlikely. Right, but for totally different reasons. His tools will not provide any functionality for my systems in addition to those I already have > Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the > arguments of the Debian people should say that you simply cannot run > GPL3 software on any system that uses the Linux kernel. A real bullshit argument. It is utter nonsense > Anyway, it is an illustration of the fact that without good will, the > most minor points can be blown up into major battles. Well, Jörg certainly has no good will at all. And constantly lying about the subject will not make him any friends, either > If one cannot even > get Debian and Schilling together by enough to solve the cdrtools > problem for the users, There isn't a "problem". The users don't miss them > there is zero hope of solving problems like > Palestine, Iran, Iraq, ..... At least people have not died yet because > of this dispute. Why not mention world peace? Idiotic "argument".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web