On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Mauro Santos <registo.mailling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> Mauro Santos <registo.mailling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> "Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to >>> be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that >>> time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably >> >> Good point! >> >> Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching >> ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). >> >> Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. >> >> Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. >> >> I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and >> that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. > > Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. > > The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by > publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it > has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without > fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. > > On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their > claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review > the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been > itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. > > Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. > This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references > irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. > > This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't > want these rules to apply to you. > > If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then > _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the > legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of > wanting people to believe something because you say so. > > > -- > Mauro Santos at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the "yay" thread started afterwards. seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it? doubtful. this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias. i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_. his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation. if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/ would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo! am i right? i don't know ANY other distro that includes it. in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools. on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO) C Anthony
