On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rasmus Steinke <rasi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jörg has a point. While of course being biased about his pet cdrtools, > cdrkit is not on par with cdrtools in any way. > Those updates you mention more or less only consist of small fixes, no > progess at all in that package. > > The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of > cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the > legal issues. > Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure > claim. > Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.html > This doesnt change the fact that cdrtools is clearly superior to cdrkit. > (Just check arch's bugtracker) > > Rasi > If this wasn't the case, the situation wouldn't suck as much. Everyone would just use cdrkit without second thoughts. But when a project is forked by external (non-involved) people simply for fixing the license rather than fixing real technical problems, I wouldn't expect great progress being made. Anyway let's stop talking about all this non-sense BS. I am very happy with how the wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning) presents things by staying very practical. Install packaged cdrkit, and if it doesn't work for you, install cdrtools from AUR.
