#include <hallo.h> * Joerg Schilling [Mon, Nov 13 2006, 11:45:20AM]: > Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > #include <hallo.h> > > * Martin Vlk [Fri, Nov 10 2006, 12:18:15PM]: > > > Hi, I wonder should this bug's priority be rised so that it is fixed > > > before > > > etch? The tool is unusable like that so it is a pretty serious bug. > > > > Why do you ask us? Ask Joerg Schilling, he does want that shit to be > > printed, even sabotaging the program. He has the copyright and he does > > not allow to remove the problematic parts. > > Nobody except Eduard Bloch and his "Friends" are sabotaging cdrtools.....
Bullshit, frankly speaking. Why? Because this is not related to the what I said. I talk about our fork and not your cdrtools. And sabotaging means destruction from inside by insiders. How can we destruct another project from inside? In fact, you are sabotaging cdrkit. You make it non-free and maybe undistributable in binary form. How? With your license modifications that you do not want to explain but which do exist, written down THERE by YOU, hidden INSIDE of the source. > At Debian, a working build system has been recently replaced by something > that > does definitely not work (*), the code Mr. Bloch complains abut looks like a > useful hint to the users that something might be wrong. > *) Most of the (autoconf/configure) tests have been replaced by static defines > that may be valid on Mr. Bloch's home system but are wrong on the majority of > the systems out in the world. First, you claim things about superiority of your creations, but you provide no proof here. And I honestly doubt that you test every release on every plattform you are talking about. Second, we don't claim that cdrkit is portable to 40 operating systems, most of which already became extinct. The portability state is announced as soon ad cdrkit is ported to an OS and really tested there. Therefore, there is no reason to warn our users. Obviosly, one cannot support every OS including Zuse machines. One has to make the decission of where to cut the support, and we do that for cdrkit (and not you). Third, we do not talk about cdrtools anymore. But about cdrkit. We warn our users when we feel the need to do so. There should be no reason to accept orders from a non-involved person. Summary: there is obviosly no reason (reason as in: rational justification) to keep the FUD message printing. For you, it means that it's time clarify the license issues. Clarify, as in: make the understanding clear and the issue transparent... not provide more confusing or unrelated speeches. Please answer, are the extra clauses void or not? (*) If they are valid, why do you announce your licenses as beeing GPL (or CDDL) and do not point to the restrictions at a prominent place, ie. together with the main license texts? Are you going to ignore these questions once again? You are able to write good code but inept to give honest answers, that's how we should interpret a refusal to answer? You are going to cheat on our users and redistributors, that is how we should interpret a refusal? (*) If they are void, we automaticaly have the permission to modify or remove them, as long as the obligations of GPL and local laws are met. [ ads for the other project removed ] > 1) The working official build sytstem has been replaced by a defective > one > > 2) The initator spend some months in trying to fix the self caused problems > > 3) The "project" became catatonic after ~ 6 months. No own intellectual > creation has ever been added to this project. > > The Debian speudo fork is currently in stage 2) ... Huch, you can read the future? Obviosly not, let me point you to some facts: 0) We are not Redhat. Or Arklinux. And our story line is already much different: 1) A lot of extra code has already been added 2) Almost all known self-caused problems are fixed. Port to AIX is functional (scsi transport not tested, though). Port to SunOS is prepared in a subversion branch (scsi transport not tested, though). A Cstyle-cleanup is also prepared (yes, meaning a cleanup and not conversion to Cstyle as in your terms). 3) The development stalled a bit in the last weeks, but not because of incompetence but because we are on a decission point: either wait for your to make the license of the contaminated files free, or drop all of them and move to libburn/cdrskin. The last thing is not as impossible as you may want to believe: it does support audio formats, TAO and multisession now... most of the things a user needs. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
