Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When you compare against classical UNIX/POSIX privileges, cdrecord needs
> > the
> > following privileges in addition to the UNIX/POSIX basic privs:
> >
> > - The ability to open privileged device nodes
> >
> > - The ability to issue several privileged device ioctl()s
>
> All of this can be handled by correct permissions on device nodes -
> which is handled by udev.
Regarding the first point:
- If you like to weaken the security of you private home computer,
it is up to you. Cdrecord has been designed for better security.
Regarding the second point:
- You are obviously completely uninformed about recent (starting with
2.6.8.1) Linux kernels. If you like to discuss things like this with
me, please inform yourself before about the Linux SCSI filtering code.
> > - The ability to lock into memory
>
> This can be done without being root.
Wrong in the general case even for Linux.
> > - The ability to control (raise) process priority
>
> This is not needed when the system has a correct scheduler (like Linux
> has).
You are onbviously uninformed about CD/DVD writing. See also below!
The Linux scheduler is not better then other schedulers and it does not
allow cdrecord to run under a real time priority without extra privileges.
> > - The ability to use port numbers below 1024
>
> You don't need that to burn a CD.
You are obviously uninformed about cdrecord.
Try:
man cdrecord
/remote/
or read README.rscsi
or call cdrecord cdrecord dev=help
in order to find out why cdrecord needs this privilege.
> > As Linux does not implement a framework that allows a process to obtain
> > these
> > privileges without being root, it is obvious that cdrecord need to be run
> > by
> > root or to be installed suid root.
>
> Which is wrong, as dvd+rw-tools doesn't need these privileges.
Do you really like to compare apples with oranges?
growisofs is a very simple tool that only supports to write DVDs in packet mode.
cdrecord writes in streaming mode....
If you don't understand the constraints, please ask but avoid sending again
untrue claims.
> > > Sorry, but Debian only ships free software.
> >
> > You are obviously missinformed: Debian refuses to ship free software.
> >
> > Cdrecord is obviously OSI approved free/OSS software, please try to inform
> > yourself....
>
> The additional clause (yes, the one you are calling an "interpretation")
> you are adding to the GPL (or, more recently, the CDDL) is so utterly
> non-free that it doesn't even need to be discussed. I'm very well
> informed on this matter, and I won't be corrected by people trying to
> retroactively change their (formerly free) licensing scheme when it
> comes to discussing about free software.
These uninformed (and wrong) rants insult me (the reader) and thus void your
credibility. It this what you like to achive here?
>From your rants, I get the impression that you just did not understand that I
>am
a person who takes OSS very serious. I wish this was also true for all Debian
maintainers.
The CDDL is a first class OSI approved license because it is open, free and
allows to mix CDDL code with code from other OSI licenses.
The GPL is a second class OSI license because it does not allow GPL code to
appear in other OSI approved projects. The GPL is even asymmetric as it allows
code with any license (even closed source) to appear inside a GPLd project (*).
If you like to have a license related discussion with me, please don't insult
me
and first read both the GPL and the CDDL as well as
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract
*) Prove by the fact that the FSF did not sue Veritas for including CSS code
with their version of GNU tar and by reading GPL §2 first sentence and GPL §2
clause b).
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
