Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu

Bug #213215 reported by pandion on 2008-04-07
156
This bug affects 31 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Linux Mint
Medium
Clement Lefebvre
Baltix
Medium
Mantas Kriaučiūnas
cdrtools (Fedora)
Unknown
Unknown
cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

After receiving an update for Ubuntu Gustsy Gibbon v7.10, CD and DVD burning is now broken (other versions may also be affected). I remember seeing the original cdrtools files listed as being replaced or removed during the update, but didn't know the problems it was going to cause so I allowed the update to proceed. After the update, all I am able to burn are coasters. Initially I thought K3B was the cause, but Brasero and Nautilus also have the same problems and are unable to successfully burn CDs or DVDs properly (I am writing this from a different PC so I don't have the error messages at the moment). After doing some research on this problem, I found that the original cdrools utilities (which worked and were able to successfully burn both CDs and DVDs on the affected PC prior to the update) had been replaced with a broken fork (which explains the messages I saw regarding replacing/removing these files during an update). The presence of the broken version can be confirmed by checking the Programs being used for burning within K3B or from the command line. The link below to the cdrecord website has some information regarding this broken fork and how to confirm the version installed. Last time I checked, this problem has not been corrected through an update and fixing it manually is not something I know how to do yet. This needs to be fixed through an update. Hopefully this broken fork has not found it's way into the upcoming Hardy Heron release.

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been any activity in it recently. We were wondering is this still an issue for you? Can you try with latest Ubuntu release? Thanks in advance.

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

We'd like to figure out what's causing this bug for you, but we haven't heard back from you in a while. Could you please provide the requested information? Thanks!

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
summary: - Broken Fork of cdrtools Installed with Updates
+ Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
Michał Gołębiowski (mgol) wrote :

There is no special information to provide. It's just a fact that cdrkit packages are illegally distributed (by creating illegal links named cdrecord etc.) and is even so flawed that if you install original cdrtools, they will keep replacing its executables.

We just should go back to the original tools, that's all.

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

Marking as Wishlist and Confirmed.

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
status: New → Confirmed

Until any decision will be made, you can use this ppa:

ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools

Runs much better than the Ubuntu-Packages. Another thing to meantion is that since Ubuntu provides the "Fake"-Packages, I've got burning Problems very often. Erasing a DVD failed always, only buying Nero-Linux solved the Problem for me.

Download full text (3.7 KiB)

Hey thanks! It's been awhile since I've checked that bug report. They've asked if I've had the same issue with newer versions of Ubuntu.. but the PC gets used a lot and I just haven't had the time for a complete new install etc. (it's planned though).

I added that to my Software Sources on Gutsy and also added the Signing Key as in the instructions. After updating the Sources, do I just have to install/reinstall "cdrecord" and "mkisofs", or is there also supposed to be a "CDRTools" package that should be installed to replace "CDRKit"?

When I finally get around to it I plan to reinstall the PC with a clean install of Lucid Lynx (or possibly Hardy Heron). I just have so much other stuff to do that I'm still running Gutsy for now, and have been dual booting WinXP when I need to burn something (which is a pain when I'm working on something and have to boot XP just to burn a disc). I haven't tried burning with either Hardy or Lucid, so I thought I'd ask.. Do those versions have the same issues?

Thanks again!

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/+bug/213215
https://launchpad.net/~brandonsnider/+archive/cdrtools

--- On Wed, 5/12/10, Thorsten Reinbold <email address hidden> wrote:

> From: Thorsten Reinbold <email address hidden>
> Subject: [Bug 213215] Re: Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
> To: <email address hidden>
> Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:30 AM

> Until any decision will be made, you
> can use this ppa:
>
> ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools
>
> Runs much better than the Ubuntu-Packages. Another thing to
> meantion is
> that since Ubuntu provides the "Fake"-Packages, I've got
> burning
> Problems very often. Erasing a DVD failed always, only
> buying Nero-Linux
> solved the Problem for me.
>
> --
> Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in
> Ubuntu
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct
> subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in “cdrtools” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed
>
> Bug description:
> After receiving an update for Ubuntu Gustsy Gibbon v7.10,
> CD and DVD burning is now broken (other versions may also be
> affected).  I remember seeing the original cdrtools
> files listed as being replaced or removed during the update,
> but didn't know the problems it was going to cause so I
> allowed the update to proceed.  After the update, all I
> am able to burn are coasters.  Initially I thought K3B
> was the cause, but Brasero and Nautilus also have the same
> problems and are unable to successfully burn CDs or DVDs
> properly (I am writing this from a different PC so I don't
> have the error messages at the moment).  After doing
> some research on this problem, I found that the original
> cdrools utilities (which worked and were able to
> successfully burn both CDs and DVDs on the affected PC prior
> to the update) had been replaced with a broken fork (which
> explains the messages I saw regarding replacing/removing
> these files during an update).  The presence of the
> broken version can be confirmed by checking the Programs
> being used for burning within K3B or from the command
> line.  The...

Read more...

This is the Statement of Jörg Schilling, the creator of cdrtools, from our Forum (www.ubuntuusers.de). I've translated this to english:

"It is up to Mark Shuttleworth, who has not met his promise, unfortunately, to integrate the cdrtools again in Ubuntu. This promise he has given me at OSCON 2008 in Portland. Then he let himself be persuaded by people that, unfortunately, have persuaded him against their better knowledge, there were licensing issues with the cdrtools. Sun says although the legal department clearly, there are no problems and also the advisory attorney OpenSource.org a generalized statement (with legal documents) to add in a positive form."

So, whats up here?

Just to be complete: the original Quote can be found here:

http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-die-schil/3/

@16:54

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Wodim really is a very broken and obsolete package, while it should be providing an important part of the Linux 'desktop' experience. Please cut the licensing b/s and switch Ubuntu back to cdrtools, which actually _works_... Thanks!

Mårten Woxberg (maxmc) wrote :

Everything is explained in detail here:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

André Cotte (acotte) wrote :

i've also had problems with CD and DVD burning with Ubuntu Now that I'm aware of this bad fork, I ask you to replace all these programs with the original.

I'm not shure if it is Ok to post this here, but Jörg Schilling (cdrtools Developer) and another User (Antiqua) from our Forum are building actual Ubuntu-Packages in this Thread, where you can download them:

http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-die-schil/5/

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

It seems, that Jörg Schilling recommends to use cdrtools from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools repository, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/+bug/556595/comments/4 :

Schily wrote on 2010-04-07:
> I recommend you to first upgrade to recent original software:
> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/
> https://launchpad.net/~brandonsnider/+archive/cdrtools

I've checked cdrtools_3.00-0ubuntu1~ppa1 from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools sources packaging and can confirm, that these packages are original cdrtools-3.00 packages without any patches applied.

Also I copied cdrtools-3.00 from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools to main Baltix GNU/Linux repository - ppa:baltix-members/ppa

Changed in baltix:
assignee: nobody → Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas)
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → In Progress
Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Ok great.. so when do we - after more than 2 years - see these packages FINALLY in Ubuntu?

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Another 6 months have passed without any progress here.. Just checking in, showing that somebody still cares about this.. *sigh*

bmhm (bmhm) wrote :

If there were source-only-packages (i.e. no pre-built binaries), there would be no licencing-problems. Because of this, Gentoo can provide (source-)packages without violating any licences[1].

Also, Canonical might want to spend some money on this issue as Oracle (former: SUN) did to prove whether there is a licence violation in distributing binaries or not. See #7.

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Nobody is violating a license for distributing cdrtools either in source or in binary form.

If you believe the people who claim that there is a problem, then Ubuntu as a whole would be undistributable as Ubuntu is full of similar constructions.

I had a discussion with Till Jaeger (the most well known OSS lawyer) and he confirmed that under the most pessimistic assumptions (that come from people only who do not own Copyright on cdrtools and thus are irrelevant anyway) you may need to use dynamic linking.....to avoid any problems.

But let us look at the current situation: Ubuntu is distributing cdrkit that is definitely in conflict with the Copyright

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__14.html because it intentionally introduced bugs to attack my reputation

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__13.html because Copyright signs have been removed

It seems that it is Ubunu's intention to be in conflict with the law - is this the reason why Ubuntu does not like to distribute a legal solution based on the original sources?

bmhm (bmhm) wrote :

Jörg, I did not want to propose the idea that there actually are licencing problems. I just wanted to point out that distributing the source only would *definitely* have no licencing problems at all - regardless of Debian's understanding of licence compatiblity.

Would be a win-win for all of us, wouldn't it?

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

If Ubuntu did not distribute the illegal cdrkit, I would fully agree with you.

Please note that I as the Copyright holder also need to admonish people or companies that do not follow a legal path and Ubuntu is in not on a legal path because they publish cdrkit.

On the other side, users like binary installs....

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Schily, can't you as copyright holder 'sort' this licensing stuffs once and for all, to finally get Ubuntu in the 21st century wrt to cd burning ( even though cd burning is becoming sooo 90's by itself .. ;) ) cdrkit just froze on me again while trying to burn an audio cd.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

I have no idea how I could change things since the original software has no license
problems.

Ubuntu just seem to ignore facts and instead ships dead software that even has
problems with legality.

Ubuntu obviously is not independent and is no more than a vassal of Debian that
verified that they are not interested in OSS and did not start shipping cdrtools even
though they gave the promise to do so to Simon Phipps.

Do you have an idea (an explicit proposal) on how to change this situation?

Changed in linuxmint:
status: New → Incomplete
importance: Undecided → Medium
assignee: nobody → Clement Lefebvre (clementlefebvre)
milestone: none → lmde-upcoming

I'm marking this as affecting Linux Mint and I'd be happy to chat with you Schily to understand the problem fully and to see if we can solve it. Feel free to contact me by email, or directly via IRC at #pimpmymint on irc.spotchat.org.

If after this discussion we decide that we want to fix this issue in Linux Mint we'll try to convince Debian first in an attempt to let it flow from upstream to all derivatives.

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Clement,

Please inform us (Baltix GNU/Linux operating system developers) here about
the results of your conversation with Schily.
We also wanna to include original up-to-date cdrecord instead of old and
buggy fork wodim.
It would be nice to use the same cdrecord package for Linux Mint and Baltix GNU/Linux

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 03:36:10AM -0000, Clement Lefebvre wrote:
> I'm marking this as affecting Linux Mint and I'd be happy to chat with
> you Schily to understand the problem fully and to see if we can solve
> it. Feel free to contact me by email, or directly via IRC at #pimpmymint
> on irc.spotchat.org.
>
> If after this discussion we decide that we want to fix this issue in
> Linux Mint we'll try to convince Debian first in an attempt to let it
> flow from upstream to all derivatives.

--
Labanaktis/Good luck,
Mantas Kriaučiūnas Jabber ID: <email address hidden> GPG ID: 43535BD5
Public organization "Open Source for Lithuania" - www.akl.lt
Geriausios biuro programos verslui ir namams - http://openoffice.lt
Prekyba naujais ir atnaujintais kompiuteriais su Linux OS - http://tinklas.eu
Naudok Baltix GNU/Linux sistemą savo kompiuteryje - http://baltix.lt

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Hi Mantas,

what kind of discussion do you believe is necessary?

Cdrtools is legal OSS and thus there is no need for a contract to use it.

As Debian did change seveal users of cdrtools with the intention to make it hard to replace cdrkit by the original software, you may need to remove these changes in order to get a usable overall system.

BTW: I tried to see Clement in the IRC to no avail. It may be a good idea to have a dicsussion via mail.

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Schily,

I don't need any discussion, I just don't have enough time to maintain
cdrecord package, so, I simply need good cdrecord package + bugreporters
and deb package maintainers, which can help to fix major problems :)

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -0000, Schily wrote:
> what kind of discussion do you believe is necessary?
>
> Cdrtools is legal OSS and thus there is no need for a contract to use
> it.
>
> As Debian did change seveal users of cdrtools with the intention to make
> it hard to replace cdrkit by the original software, you may need to
> remove these changes in order to get a usable overall system.
>
> BTW: I tried to see Clement in the IRC to no avail. It may be a good
> idea to have a dicsussion via mail.

--
Labanaktis/Good luck,
Mantas Kriaučiūnas Jabber ID: <email address hidden> GPG ID: 43535BD5
Public organization "Open Source for Lithuania" - www.akl.lt
Geriausios biuro programos verslui ir namams - http://openoffice.lt
Prekyba naujais ir atnaujintais kompiuteriais su Linux OS - http://tinklas.eu
Naudok Baltix GNU/Linux sistemą savo kompiuteryje - http://baltix.lt

@Schily: I should be on #pimpmymint (irc.spotchat.org) most of the time. If I'm not there, you can contact oscar799 and she should be able to get in touch with me. I'm working on the code at the moment so I tend to turn the IRC off (too distracting), sorry for my absence :) I'd like to chat with you, because it's not only about the technical side of things, there's a whole political/social element to it and so rather than asking questions by email, I'd love to be able to have an interactive chat and a proper discussion with you. Do you spend time on freenode otherwise? If so what's your nick over there?

@Mantas: I'll update the bug report to let everyone know. Ideally I'd like the solution to be the same across all Debian derivatives, especially for a component of this importance.

Changed in linuxmint:
status: Incomplete → Confirmed

Well, I had a conversation with Schily. As far as the political/social aspects go, I'm satisfied with his explanations and I strongly feel he needs our support. As much as possible, we should push to get the original cdrecord, mkisofs, cdda2wav... into Debian.

I'm still not at ease with the technical side of things and I don't fully comprehend the extent of the problem.. how wide it is, how many packages it affects and how many use cases can be impacted by possible regressions.

I need to know more about Brasero, libburn etc.. so I'm hoping we'll have another chat about these.

The status of packages like "wodim" (aka cdrecord), "genisoimage" (aka mkisofs), "icedax" (aka cdda2wav), who are not only based on the 2004 codebase of the tools they renamed, but apparently filled with patches the original developer finds buggy ... these, in my opinion, need to be dropped.

I'll be happy to talk about this on the Debian derivatives mailing list in an effort to get Debian to tackle the problem upstream, so it can flow downstream towards LMDE, Debian derivatives, Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

If we don't get anything done upstream, we'll need to assess how this would affect compatibility and maintenance for us. At the very least we could maintain Jorg's current codebase and make it easier for Mint/LMDE users to switch to it.

So in brief, I can't guarantee anything yet, but I can confirm the problem and the fact that this needs a solution.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

I did not publish a new cdrtools release since june even though there is
new code (e.g. available in the "schily" source consolidation).

If you like to make a binary package, please contact me so I can make a new
cdrtools source release and give some advise on how to compile things the
best way.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

A new cdrtools version has been released, if you like to create a binary package, please use this one.

BTW: Meanwhile, the only currently known bugreport has been verified to be a false alarm.

For:
 https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257241

the reporter send the CLI parameter to repeat the call and I cannot see any problem here.

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Any update? :)

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Clement told me that he likes to approach Debian at <email address hidden> but I did not hear from him since 3 weeks.

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Clement, have you been able to get in touch with the Debian guys?

jaymzw (jaymzw) wrote :

This issue has affected me for a long time, I'd be very happy to see it resolved. The cdrkit fork is unmaintained garbage and has produced many coasters. It's a pain to have to reinstall cdrtools manually with every release.

Can the dependencies on cdrkit be removed while the licensing issues are being sorted out so that cdrkit can be properly uninstalled without removing all the CD burning tools?

cesare (wtoro00) on 2012-01-16
Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → cesare (wtoro00)
Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Jörg Schilling,

I'd be very happy to see your original cdrtools software in Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and other free operating systems.
It seems this can be achieved very easily - you can simply add the thirty-nine words text in sources of some libraries from cdrtools package:
"You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General
Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."

It's very easy to do and cost nothing :)

Jörg, please, give the permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions.

Please, add this text even if you are 100% sure, that you don't *need* to grant the permission - all users of your original cdrtools software will be very happy if you add this text, because then your package will be included into OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and other Linux-based free OS, according to
https://features.opensuse.org/311186 and http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-02/msg00089.html

Jörg, please don't waste your time and don't argue with them even if they are not telling the truth - I've read yours answer (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-02/msg00093.html ) and I agree with you, but you could show your generosity and simply give the permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries.
Thank you very much for all your work and efforts.

I'm pasting some text from email above:
[..]
After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of
cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken.
We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright
holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I
pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the
problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give
permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries
for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source
under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We
drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to
link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which
is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do,
you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."
[...]
Though Jörg continued to argue that he didn't *need* to grant the
permission, he never explained why, in the face of opposing legal
analysis on behalf of the copyright holders of mkisofs he didn't
*want* to grant a harmless permission that would allow his work to be
included in Canonical's Ubuntu distributions. After weeks of
discussion and many hours of my time and the time of my associate
Aaron Williamson, Mark Shuttleworth decided there was no point in
further fruitless negotiation and I agreed.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Your request creates the impression that the original cdrtools are not valid OSS.

I am sorrry to see that you are wrong.

I've received a very clear statement from Eben Moglen on that the GPL of course
permits to link GPLd software against any library of any license as this is the
requirement for being able to permit to publish binaries from GPLd programs (such
as gtar) for platforms that do not come with a GPLd or LGPLd libc.

As you should know, the statement you are requesting does not exist from the gtar
Copyright holders in order "to permit to ship gtar binaries for Solaris, AIX or HP-UX",
just because it is commonly agreed that such statement is not needed.

So please do not ask me to do things that you won't ask from other projects.

Matteo Italia (matteo-mitalia) wrote :

Schily, what's wrong with adding those words, even if they are redundant?
If your interpretation of the matter is correct (and I believe it is, although IANAL) you are just making extra-explicit what is already permitted by of your license and the GPL, so you aren't granting any extra permission over what can be done with your code - from your point of view nothing changes.
On the other hand, people who think that the situation is currently into a "grey zone" will be relieved by the explicit permission, and we'll put to an end to the whole cdrkit nonsense. Everybody wins.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Well, I'll tell you what's wrong:

The claim "...If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."

does never apply for typical OSS projects (unless someone makes _all_ parts
available under the GPL in their repspective source), so Mantas asked me to
grant something I do not need to grant, that I will not grant and that has not
been granted to the vast majority of OSS.

If you e.g. publish a gtar binary for HP-UX (which is a closed source platform),
only the parts from gtar that have been compiled from the gtar sources are
under GPL and nobody sees a problem with that fact.

This is because the GPL only requires the following:

- the parts that are from GPLd source need to be published under the terms
  and conditions of the GPL.

- the parts that are not compiled from GPLd source need to be made available
  to allow recompilation and re-linking.

If you don't believe me, you should read the GPL book from Harald Welte's lawyer.

Cdrtools are fully compatible with the requirements of the GPL and I see no
reason to grant more than the GPL request to be granted.

Sorry for this OT but am I the only one who has the feeling that this all is redicoulus? It really seems that this is something personal. What is the problem in adding a bit of text? I really have the strong feeling that you, schily, are not really interested in solving the problem. If I'm wrong, I make a formal apology. But I really havn't read any suggestion from you about how this could be solved.

And the users are the ones that suffer from this feud. Really sad.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Well, it seems that recently some people came up with proposals that are not
realizable. Let me give some explanations on the background:

The whole problem has been initiated by an unfriendly Debian packetizer in
May 2004. At that time this person was a newcomer and the previous
Debian packetizer was a very friendly and honorable person. The "reason"
for initiatig this dispute was that the unfriendly newcomer wanted to
force me to include a defective patch in mkisofs.

After aprox. 15 months, this Debian packetizer came up with the new
and unsourced claim that there is a so called "license problem" in
cdrecord. If you closely look at his claims published that since then,
you will see that the interpretation of the GPL for his claim differs from
the interpretation for all other OSS projects.

Other prople who recently tried to really change things came up with the
proposal not to talk about licensing in this context.

Now Mantas came up with a proposal that is based on trying to force
me to accept worse conditions for cdrtools than other OSS projects
are given. Please understand that this is not acceptable.

The current cdrtools source already contains some explanations on
the GPL. If you believe that this is not sufficient, I may add more text
as long as this text is based on equal treatment on all OSS projects.
Did you read the file COPYING?

Thorsten: I encourage you to read http://www.osscc.net/de/gplger.html

If you believe I should add some statements that better explain
that/why the GPL definitely does not require other "works" to be under
GPL, try to make a proposal for a wording.

If you however belive that the GPL requires "other works" to be under
GPL just because we are talking about cdrtools even though the rest
of the OSS ecosystem works under different aasumption, you need to
rethink your position.

If you like to help, manage to include cdrtools packages in ubuntu.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Just a note.... in case this helps:

Yesterday, I reworded the file "COPYING" a bit in order to avoid confusion
and to make things more obvious.

Check: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/COPYING

in special the new top parts that explain work-limits and the enhanced
GPL notes at the end that now explain that the GPL under no
circumstances requires other works to be put under GPL.

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Thank you very much Schily, hope your work now will be included into free GNU/Linux distributions.
Maybe someone could inform about improved "COPYING" file Debian, OpenSUSE, Fedora and other distros developers?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:04:15PM -0000, Schily wrote:
> Just a note.... in case this helps:
> Yesterday, I reworded the file "COPYING" a bit in order to avoid confusion
> and to make things more obvious.
>
> Check: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/COPYING
>
> in special the new top parts that explain work-limits and the enhanced
> GPL notes at the end that now explain that the GPL under no
> circumstances requires other works to be put under GPL.
>
> --
> Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu

--
Labanaktis/Good luck,
Mantas Kriaučiūnas Jabber ID: <email address hidden> GPG ID: 43535BD5
Public organization "Open Source for Lithuania" - www.akl.lt
Geriausios biuro programos verslui ir namams - http://openoffice.lt
Prekyba naujais ir atnaujintais kompiuteriais su Linux OS - http://tinklas.eu
Naudok Baltix GNU/Linux sistemą savo kompiuteryje - http://baltix.lt

It is amazing that this problem of Wodim is so persistent, while it clearly compromises the quality of Ubuntu and Linux. Canonical please seek to find a solution!

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
assignee: cesare (wtoro00) → nobody

> Please, add this text even if you are 100% sure, that you don't *need* to grant the permission

> Schily, what's wrong with adding those words, even if they are redundant?

What's wrong with acting irrationally even if you're not? It appears you are applying pressing to the wrong party here.

> I had a conversation with Schily. As far as the political/social aspects go,
> I'm satisfied with his explanations and I strongly feel he needs our support.

Amen.

> So please do not ask me to do things that you won't ask from other projects.

Reasonable men will not.

> Now Mantas came up with a proposal that is based on trying to force
> me to accept worse conditions for cdrtools than other OSS projects
> are given.

That is neither reasonable nor acceptable. Remain steadfast.

> Thank you very much Schily, hope your work now will be included into free GNU/Linux distributions.

Hope? Will you not also apply pressure to the other parties in this issue? Such that the public sphere may observe?

To that end what progress has since been accompished?

Marcos Mora (marcosjosemora) wrote :

Hello.

It is no clear to me if this problem has been addresed at all since I reported a dupplicated bug in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrkit/+bug/1106855 ( Bug #213215)

clic to get more info on the matter.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

I am not sure how I should interpret the text in comment #44. To me it
looks as if it has been written by a very unfriendly person but I am open
for a different explanation if possible...

Let me recapitulate:

In May 2004 a new and unfriendly Debian packetizer started to attack
the cdrtools project because his broken patch for mkisofs was not accepted.

As this packetizer also was extremely lazy, he did not upgrade cdrtools since
he started his new "job" and as a result many problems that have been a result
of incompatible linux kernel interface changes become obvious and users
complaint a lot.

In summer 2005, this person started a red herring by claiming that cdrtools
have a license problem.

In late September 2006, Debian "upgraded" to a cdrtools version from
Septemer 2004 and added many new bugs. In December, Debian removed
important Copyright notices for the original author from the code.

In May 2007, the last substancial change has been introduced into the Debian
"fork". Since then, only typo corrections have been applied.

Well, the lawyers from Sun, the lawyers from Oracle and the lawyers from Suse
confirmed that there is no license problem with the original code. Even Eben
Moglen confirmed this in a private mail to me.

So what is the reason for Ubuntu to prevent people from being able to use
working legal original software and why does Ubuntu still distribute "cdrkit"?

testing123 (garf-schroedinger) wrote :

@Schilly

If the-unfriendly-who-was-not-named made a bogus claim about licensing but then (as you pointed out) went to the dark side of the law by actually breaking your copyright, isn't it simpler to just SUE his @$$ and then get Debian fixed ?
(For the downstream distros that are still reluctant, such as Ubuntu, you could just point them to the result of the lawsuit or even to the preliminary paperwork and also the the ppa repositories so they can switch even before Debian does.)

I know it sounds harsh, it is, but any person making people burn a lot of coasters and a lot of time just for a lousy patch (and possibly sent some users back to windoze) can go to hеll in my book and .... burn all he wants with all the patches he wants.
And since the closest thing to hell is the justice systsem, there's the suggestion above.

And I also realise that you already worked a LOT on this (and I'm hoping you continue to do so for newer optical drives like BD-R etc if you haven't already done so), but you're the only one who can sue the-unfriendly-who-was-not-named. If you don't have time, see if any association could do it pro bono on your behalf (and with your proper authorization, of course).

Marcos Mora (marcosjosemora) wrote :

Has this bug been worked around some how?

@Marcos:

No, the situation is not going to change even if Joerg Schilling is going to change the license. He has shown several times that he has a hostile attitude towards others in the open source community and therefore most people who know him refuse to work with Joerg anymore.

Matteo Italia (matteo-mitalia) wrote :

Woa, now the ridicolousness of this debate is getting critical, I've seen five-year-old children way more reasonable than the two opposing parties involved in this debate.
If this wasn't keeping millions of systems with broken software it would be at least mildly entertaining; seeing how this is going, probably our best hope is that optical media just phase out.

@Matteo:

Debian is moving to libburnia-project.org and cdrkit is going to be removed soon. And, no, it's not a kindergarten, it has some serious background which I do not like to disclose here though as it might have legal ramifications.

Just believe me that this cannot be resolved the way you want it to be resolved.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Mr. Glaubitz is well known to spread hostile personal attacks at various places.
just search for "glaubitz" or "cbmuser".

Matteo, your assessment was right. People with a real objection would be able to
verify their claims.

As you can read in comment #46, the problem was initiated by two people at Debian
that do not act in a social way and started personal attacks and attacks against
the cdrtools project in May 2004. This ended in an unverified claim of suposed legal
problems in cdrtools.

In Summer 2008, Mark Shuttleworth proposed a plan to work around the Debian
initated problem but later in 2008, he made it obvious that he will never honour his
promise.

What may help is the fact that currently three companies made a full legal review for
cdrtools and all as a result decided to include the original cdrtools in their distro. The
last company that made a full legal review was SuSe (in Autumn 2013). As a result,
SuSe now includes cdrtools again even though there have been several anonymous
threats from Debian people (those people could be de-anonymized) in the bug tracking
system from SuSe.

The Linux distros that still do not ship cdrtools are distros that did never ask a specialized
lawywer.

BTW: libburnia is still not supporting all features that cdrtools supported 10 years ago.

Peter Funk (pf-artcom-gmbh) wrote :

I tried to burn a bluray BD-R on my Kubuntu 14.04 LTS laptop using k3b.
This did not work. (files from the resulting disc can not be read).

After some research I got here.

Since I could not find the cdrtools source mentioned in the messages above using the URLs
on berlios I tried to find cdrtools using $earch-engine and ended up here:

http://fossies.org/linux/misc/cdrtools-3.01a24.tar.gz

Is this the right place?
Is fetching and compiling this software the only way to solve this problem in Ubuntu?
In 2014?

It would be helpful if someone with more knowledge about this topic could explain
what users should do if they simply want to burn bluray discs for backup
purposes. Even a pointer to a tutorial is welcome.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.