Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: Tony Houghton on 26 Jan 2010 17:53 In <7s95umFm69U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > In article <slrnhlskdj.49l.h(a)realh.co.uk>, > Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote: > >>It actually prevents people from adopting it if they want to distribute >>it in strict compliance with common licences (interpreted the way nearly >>everyone else interprets them). > > Cdrkit is in conflict with GPL and Copyright law and cannot be legally > distributed either in source or in binary. Most of your specific claims about its alleged GPL violations can be trivially disproved by comparing what the GPL really says and what cdrkit really does against your claims. That doesn't require any sort of legal expertise. > The original cdrtools code has no legal problems and this was checked by > various lawyers including the Sun legal department. Good, so there's no problem with people using a work derived from an early version (ie cdrkit) instead of the version to which you've introduced licensing problems. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: unruh on 26 Jan 2010 19:01 On 2010-01-26, Nix <nix-razor-pit(a)esperi.org.uk> wrote: > On 25 Jan 2010, anahata(a)treewind.co.uk stated: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:26:59 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> >>> CD-RW media isn't recommended >> >> I've never got CD-RW to work satisfactorily for anything. > > They've always worked fine for me (well, they're unreliable as hell, but > so are CD-Rs: you get a 'medium not found' a few years after burning > them, no matter what. I lost a few hundred Mb of old data that way > once... not again.) > > But burning stuff to them (with wodim and with the kernel's UDF support > and cdrwtool) has always worked for me, even in DVD burners. Sorry, so you are saying that you can burn them but not read them? Hm, strange definition of "work".
From: Nix on 27 Jan 2010 17:39 On 27 Jan 2010, unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca told this: > On 2010-01-26, Nix <nix-razor-pit(a)esperi.org.uk> wrote: >> They've always worked fine for me (well, they're unreliable as hell, but >> so are CD-Rs: you get a 'medium not found' a few years after burning >> them, no matter what. I lost a few hundred Mb of old data that way >> once... not again.) >> >> But burning stuff to them (with wodim and with the kernel's UDF support >> and cdrwtool) has always worked for me, even in DVD burners. > > Sorry, so you are saying that you can burn them but not read them? Hm, > strange definition of "work". I can burn them and I can read them for as long as I can read CD-Rs, but both give up the ghost completely after a few years. Sucky technology.
From: Tony Houghton on 27 Jan 2010 20:12 In <7sbvniFlr2U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > All of the claims from the hostile Debian downnstram about alleged GPL > violations in the original software can be trivially disproved by comparing > what the GPL really says and what cdrtools really does against his claims. > That doesn't require any sort of legal expertise. I never heard of any such claims about the original software. OTOH Debian people did make claims about your bastardized version, which appear to be backed up by the legal expert who wrote the conflicting licence, so it would take a very crafty legal expert to disprove those claims. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: unruh on 28 Jan 2010 02:04
On 2010-01-28, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote: > In article <7sbvniFlr2U1(a)mid.dfncis.de>, > Joerg Schilling wrote: >> In article <ooy2.t771$htg0.newsq.h(a)realh.co.uk>, >> Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote: > >>>Most of your specific claims about its alleged GPL violations can be >>>trivially disproved by comparing what the GPL really says and what >>>cdrkit really does against your claims. That doesn't require any sort of >>>legal expertise. > >> All of the claims from the hostile Debian downnstram about alleged GPL >> violations in the original software can be trivially disproved by comparing >> what the GPL really says and what cdrtools really does against his claims. >> That doesn't require any sort of legal expertise. > > Please give chapter and verse. I'll bet you can't. > > Incidentally, do you have slander laws in Germany? Why, are you worried? It is the people who claim that CDDL and cdrtools violate the GPL that surely need to justify their claim, not his claim that they do not. He is the author. It would be really really really hard for him to sue anyone for using his software in combination with GPL given his statements in many public fora. Thus the only problem could be the author of a GPL claiming that use of cdrtools violated GPL. Exactly how does it violate the GPL? It is people claiming that who need to reveal chapter and verse. > |