Talk:Cdrkit

Cause of the cdrkit fork

I certainly don't think that a direct assertion of the form "Debian is wrong" belongs in the article. However, I'm not entirely familiar with the details here, and the remaining wording doesn't look entirely NPOV to me, so I've tagged the section for someone else to check. 128.194.22.189 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I researched the issue carefully, reading through the referenced web pages and a few more, and then decided to just rewrite the section, carefully attempting a neutral point of view. Now someone with an IP address in Germany (whois says: Deutsche Telekom AG) has inserted a large amount of text, telling the history of how parts of cdrtools were relicensed under the CDDL, and saying that the Debian maintainers were wrong about the license problem. The text reads exactly like something Jörg Schilling might have written (compare to: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=36175&tstart=105&start=225 ). Mr. Schilling, or whoever you are: please don't make changes like that. Even if you are correct and the Debian maintainers are incorrect, the extra text is just irrelevant. The article explains what the Debian maintainers said about why they felt the need to fork cdrtools, and the article explains what Jörg Schilling said in response. That's really all that is needed here. I am reverting the large edit. Steveha 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not put non-neutral claims in the editorial part, see below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.230.77 (talk) 16:29, September 12, 2007 (UTC)

• Debian might claim many things about the cause for cdrkit, but they fortunately cannot change the timeline that verifies that their claims about the background for cdrkit are wrong.

• Debian stopped updating their sources in May 2004 and this is when they started their "fork" that was later (in late 2006) renamed to cdrkit on request by the original Authors of cdrtools - with exaclty the same aprox. 100 Debian specific bugs that have been introduced in 2004 already (see timeline [1]).

• Everybody who is interested may use own effort to verify the timeline and then rethink the claims from Debian. Schily (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of complaining for 10 years you should be happy. They didn't copy a later version and they changed the name to avood confusion. Why u no happy, grumpy cat? 91.52.23.64 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in? But why do you write at all if you don't have anything to say? Schily (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

How to keep Wikipedia neutral

Do not use wikipedia to spread incorrect claims about free software

Do not add unproven claims.

Do not edit attempts to show the other side of a controversial statement unless you verified the statements of both sides.

If you cannot create a balanced text, remove all controversial sections.

Do not use Wikipedia to advertize for projects with commercial background from within articles for free software.

Non neutral claims in editorial parts

The non-neutral text that needed additional explanations is wrong but this is not obvious if the explanation is missing that verifies that the Debian maintainers started a speudo license dispute and that there never was a license problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.230.77 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do not like the explanations for why the Debian claims are wrong, remove the wrong claims from Debian (they do not belong into the editorial part) or let them be verified by a lawyer. There is more than lawyer that verified that there is no license problem but the claims for license problems are all from layman.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.230.77 (talk) 16:29, September 12, 2007

The "Fork" section of this article explains why there was a fork. It quotes what the Debian maintainers said, and it quotes what Jörg Schilling said. It links to the cdrtools website so the interested reader can read there what Jörg Schilling wrote about this. This is sufficient to explain why there is a fork.

For the purposes of this article it does not matter whether the Debian maintainers were correct or incorrect. They told Jörg Schilling that they would not ship cdrtools anymore unless he made changes; he would not make the changes; they forked. That's simply the history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveha (talk • contribs) 20:51, September 12, 2007

It is not the task of an Encyclopedia to copy incorrect claims without commenting them. For the credability of the claims it is important to know the chronological order of the events. Even if we asume that the claims have a credible background, the claimed problems have not been present at the time Don Armstrong started his speudo discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.241.177 (talk) 13:54, September 13, 2007

References 2 and 4 already make clear why Jörg Schilling thinks the Debian maintainers were incorrect. If you wish to add an additional reference that points to another discussion of why the Debian maintainers were incorrect, please do so. But this is an article about cdrkit, not a discussion page for whether CDDL and GPL are compatible, or whether the Debian maintainers should have forked cdrtools or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveha (talk • contribs) 20:51, September 12, 2007

For the creadibility of WP it is important not to have incorrect claims in the editorial part.It is obvious that the Dabian maintainers have other reasons than the one they claimed in public. At the time Don Armstron started the discussion, the build system and cdrecord were both under CDDL. He claimed that cdrecord was GPL and that you cannot distribute a GPL program with a non-GPL builld system. If he did believe the FUD he spread, Debian would need to go to a GPLd build system and include it in the tar ball, but he Debian tar ball neither includes the replacement build system nor did they use a GPLd build system at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.241.177 (talk) 13:54, September 13, 2007

I believe that the text I wrote for the "Fork" section has a neutral point of view. Clearly you do not agree. I believe that the text you inserted was not neutral ("it was obvious that dual licensing would not fix a problem") and was unsuitable for an encyclopedia (no references). Clearly you do not agree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveha (talk • contribs) 20:51, September 12, 2007

The text is obviously not neutral as it includes incorrect claims. These incorrect claims however may only be understood in case that the chronological oder is mentioned. You found one point where my text may not be neutral, I found several points where your text is non-nretral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.241.177 (talk) 13:54, September 13, 2007

Instead of reverting your text again, I am marking this section with the "NPOV dispute" marker. I will leave it to others to decide which of us has written neutral words here. I just want to contribute to an encyclopedia, not fight edit wars with you, whoever you are. Steveha 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to either keep the additional text or remove the non-neutral text it tries to explain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.241.177 (talk) 13:54, September 13, 2007

Also keep in mind that cdrkit stopped all activities on May 6th 2006. This is more than 4 months ago. After only 8 months of project activities, cdrkit may safely be called dead. Does it make sense to harm other free software in favor of something like cdrkit? The background for the fork is unknown, it is obvious that is was not license problems. 84.190.241.177 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am willing to provide a third opinion, as requested at WP:3O, but first I'd like both parties to sign their previous posts with the {{unsigned}} or {{unsignedIP}} templates (see Wikipedia:Signatures), in order to make the dispute more comprehensible for me and any other editor who might still be joining us. - Cyrus XIII 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm attributing the comments now (am not involved in the discussion, came here via 3O as well). --Darkwind (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. It seems that 84.190.241.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responded point-by-point interleaving his comments with Steveha (t c)'s and only signed at the bottom, making it completely illegible. 84.190.241.177, please don't do that. Respond in one block indented under the comment you're replying to, even if your comment or the one prompting your reply is more than one paragraph. --Darkwind (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Darkwind; you have correctly signed everything. My words were originally posted as a single comment, signed at the bottom. As you noted, 84.190.241.177 interleaved his/her comments with mine.

As for the main article, the section that I reverted starts right after the final citation (reference 4). The first words of the reverted section are "No lawyer confirmed..." I believe this section is irrelevant, lacks references, and contains some non-neutral claims; 84.190.241.177 has stated on this page that it is important information, and that the section preceding it is not neutral without this information. If you need any additional clarification, or you have any questions for me, just let me know. Thank you both for helping with the third opinion request. Steveha 01:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect a conflict of interest here, given the correspondence between the location reported by whois for 84.190.241.177 and related IPs, the editing patterns of those IPs, and the particular POV that is being pushed. Anomie 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Anomie on this. The IP based editor seems be strongly opinionated in favor of the Schilling and/or CDDL camp and is trying to advance a respective POV here and apparently on the German Wikipedia as well, judging from a recent dispute on the corresponding page about the exact same issues. - Cyrus XIII 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The user 84.190.241.177 and other 84.* users use weasel words like "obviously" to make his points. The word "spuedo" is also used in Shilling's essay on the cdrkit dispute with Debian--is this a word or a mis-typed "pseudo?" It's also clear, in my opinion, that this user, having used a computer in Germany, and writing in a particular tone, is pushing a non-partial POV. Subjectively it gives the impression that 84.* would be an individual who is too closely involved with cdrkit project to present any kind of non-partial view in the interest of Wikipedia. --KJRehberg (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

not 'multi' platform ?

Not able to find any documentation to support multi-platform OS. Perhaps this should be changed to 'Unix-like'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianIsMe (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

wodim is active(cdrtools) stop the FUD!59.93.0.69 (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling wodim an actively maintained project is FUD.

Wrong claims about the GPL in the article

If the GPL would really disallow packaging of GPL projects together with projects under different licenses, then the GPL would be a clearly non-free license accordingto the OpenSource initiative. 87.158.113.94 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not merely packaging the non-GPL build script with the source. The problem is that the build system must be released under the GPL as well, whether it's packaged with it or separately. The build system is part of the source code according to the GPL, and the full source code must be available under a GPL-compatible license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read and understand the GPL and the OSI rules. The GPL definitely does not say anyting about the license to use for the build system and if you believe that the GPL tries to enforce specific licenses for unrelated other projects, then you would need to admit that this claim makes the GPL clealry non-free according to the OSI rules 87.158.113.63 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The GPL most definitely has something to say about the license to use for the build system. The build system is part of the source code for the project, by its definition, and must be provided under the GPL. Quoting the GPLv2 (emphasis added):

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

And to distribute a binary, you must follow section 3 of the GPL, which requires that you provide "the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" under the GPL. You could distribute source code without a GPL build system, certainly ― although you might not be allowed to distribute a non-GPL build system ― but definitely not binaries.

The build system is not "unrelated other projects", it's essential to get the software to work. If you distribute a binary, you have to distribute enough information for a technically competent person to be able to compile an identical binary themselves. It's meaningless to distribute source code but no build system, since then you can't actually compile the same program without hours and hours of manual hacking and maybe reverse-engineering. The build system is part of the source code for the program.

If you believe this violates the OSI standards, well, the OSI disagrees with you, since it considers the GPL to be an open-source license despite the plain wording of the license that I quoted above.

Regardless of all this, it's clear that Debian thinks that there have been licensing issues with cdrtools. Completely adequate references have been provided to support that this is the position of multiple Debian maintainers. If you think there's a problem with the sources provided, please state what you think the problem is, don't mark them as needing citations with no explanation as to why the existing ones aren't good enough. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(And by the way, the CDDL build system was only one of the licensing problems that caused the fork, not the only one. There were also problems with some of the libraries used, IIRC.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you really believe that the GPL requires to put an unrelated separate project under GPL just because it is delivered together with GPL software, the GPL would be clearly non-free. You should reread the GPL to find that the GPL does not include this kind of claims. 87.158.104.86 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I already explained why the build system is not "an unrelated separate project" and pointed out that the GPL does in fact say it must be GPL-licensed, whatever you're saying. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not the person who can decide whether a project is separate or not. This is defined by historical facts and by the author. You cannot sue people for license violations, this can only be done by the author. The development of the schily makefilesystem started before mkisofs and it was done completely independently from mkisofs. The schily makefilesystem is not part of the work mkisofs, it is a separate independed project. The GPL only requires the work to be under GPL. The schily makefilesystem is not part of the work mkisofs so there is no need to put the schily makefilesystem under GPL. 87.158.104.163 (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the opinion, certainly, of some individuals. It is not the opinion of Debian, the Free Software Foundation, or anyone else I've heard cited anywhere except Jörg Schilling. According to WP:NPOV, it is not Wikipedia's job to resolve factual disputes. In the event of a disagreement, we are to note what each party believes, nothing more. The current version of the article correctly states that various Debian maintainers felt that they could not legally redistribute cdrtools, and that this was the trigger for forking it. If other people disagree with Debian's legal interpretations, then it might be relevant to briefly note this in the article, in addition to Debian's views. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You unfortunately messed up the formatting so it is impossible to respond inline.....

You need to reread the GPL: The complete source includes the build system, but the GPL does not say anything about the license of the complete source. The GPL only requires the work to be under GPL and the work is less than the complete source.

BTW: The Debian source tarball does not include the complete source and the build system used by Debian is not under GPL either. It seems that Debian has a social problem. 87.158.104.86 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You did respond inline, so I don't see how the formatting is messed up?

The GPL absolutely does say something about the license of the complete source. The only terms of the GPL that give you the right to distribute binaries, ever, are those contained in Section 2. If you do not meet the criteria of Section 2, you cannot distribute the GPL work in binary form. The entirety of Section 2 (of GPLv2, v3 is similar) reads as follows, with emphasis added:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

1. Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
2. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
3. Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

As you can see, all three possible modes of distribution of the binary of a GPL program require that you provide the complete source code, under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 of the GPL, or an offer for that source code. So the complete source code (which is defined to include the build system) must be released under the GPL, according to the text of the license. If you think this makes it unfree, you disagree with the OSI, among others.

By the way, I notice that your IP address traces to Berlin, and that the only edits from your /24 IP range have been to this article and its talk page. If you happen to be Jörg Schilling or a friend of his, I strongly recommend you make that clear, and that you avoid making any edits to cdrtools- or cdrkit-related articles, in accordance with WP:COI —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You copied parts of the GPL text but your conclusions are not derived from the GPL text. The complete source is more than the work and only the work is required to be under GPL. Let me give an example: The pdf is part of the complete source to allow to reproduce a printed book but it is not part of the work the book contains.

I would be interested to know why people are interested in software like cdrkit that does not intruduce new features, that is based on a more than three year old version of the original software and even introduced new bugs that never have been in the original software. Also note that cdrkit violates the GPL and the Copyright. 87.158.104.163 (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a question that's relevant to Wikipedia. Please see WP:TALK: article talk pages are meant for discussion of the associated Wikipedia article, not for the underlying subject matter per se. If you would like to discuss the relative merits of cdrtools and cdrkit on Wikipedia, you might want to try a page like Wikipedia:Reference desk that's meant to be used for questions that do not directly relate to the encyclopedia's operation.

If you have useful, factual information to add to the article, you should of course feel free to suggest changes on this talk page. Since it appears pretty likely at this point that you are in fact Jörg Schilling, I would suggest that it would be best that you not make any changes to the page yourself until you clarify that, one way or the other. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources in the article

The user User:Prosfilaes claims that the information from web pages of the original project is not a reliable source. If we believe him, we would need to remove virtually anything else from the article also as the article is full of personal claims from the people who started the attacks against the cdrtools project. BTW: I am not amused to see him spread incorrect claims about me. I did definitely not introduce the otherwise correct information (from November 1st 2009) about the fact that "cdrkit" is not actively maintained and full of bugs. Schily (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that self-publised sources can be used when talking about themselves. In particular, sentences like "Debian developers stated that..." and "Jörg Schilling argued that..." may link to Debian's page and yours, respectively, as references for those particular claims. They are not reliable for anything else. You might want to discuss whether the requirements included in the policy are met in this article, or the Fork section. Diego (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The facts that have been introduced by an unknown person and removed by Prosfilaes are verifiable by looking into the bug tracking systems of the various Linux distributors. We should therefore undo the removes by Prosfilaes. Schily (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Bug trackers are not reliable third party sources, and thus are not usable for verifiability. Burden of evidence requires that information to be removed until someone relevant and not involved writes about it, notwithstanding whether it's true or not. Diego (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical thinking is required about all sources. Given that cdrtools is a competing project and the link is to a page that says things like "Ask your Linux distributor to include recent originals instead of broken forks", the link is clearly not a reliable source on the subject. We don't uncritically include links to the ACLU in George Bush, for example; we either name it as a position of the ACLU in the article or find a more neutral source for the claim. Moreover, the sentence was "Fedora, Gentoo Linux, Mandriva Linux, openSUSE and Ubuntu all include cdrkit despite the fact that[...]", which is not NPOV. It's not neutral to imply that they should include something else; nor is it neutral to criticize it for not having any particular feature; and Wikipedia is most emphatically not the place to start bitching about who has more bugs. The last I would find reasonable only with the most reliable and neutral of sources, and even there I would prefer to say that "PC Magazine says [...]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Preventing certain changes

I'm not going to go back through the email threads, but IIRC there was a message added to the output from the CD burner that complained about some feature in Linux and told users to use Solaris that Schilling was upset over the deletion of. Also, [2] complains that "UrhG §14 forbids modifications that may affect personal interests of the author in the work. Debian introduced such modifications as Debian knowingly introduced bugs that prevent use and changed the behavior in a way that makes the command line syntax non-portable and Debian still makes the work available under the original names." which strikes me as not only non-GPL but non-Free Software.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to missinterpret the GPL, the GPL has less relevance than the Copyright law or UrhG. For this reason, the GPL cannot prevent rules from the law to apply. The GPL is still a OSS license but it just cannot permit changes in the source that are disallowed by law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schily (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the author publishes his work under a permissive license such as the GPL, he is voluntarily relinquishing some rights. Some actions by users that would be illegal without the explicit author's consent are made legal by him granting a license. The author can't later unilaterally retract that license trying to prevent some unintended usages, even if the actions made by the software users are not what the author expected, as long as the users actions are in compliance with the letter of the license. This is the situation that is going on here IMHO. Diego (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal system defines rights you may give away and others you may not give away. Rights that are explicitly granted by the UrhG the way it is done with §13 and §14 cannot be given way, regardless what's in the GPL. The GPL contains many claims that cannot be enforced in court (neither in Europe nor in the USA). Schily (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The enforceability in court isn't really relevant here. If you can't change the command line syntax on a program, it's not Free Software. It's possible that the UrhG means that a (German?) author can't contractually give away the right to prohibit that in Germany, which is awkward for Free Software. Nonetheless an author could choose not to invoke those clauses; if they do, then the code has prohibitions on it inconsistent with Free Software, no matter what the license is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your objections are not aligned with the problem. The Urheberrecht is not in conflict with the OSS definition. The changes that have been applied to the fork however are in conflict with the Urheberrecht. This is why the fork (although valid OpenSource) cannot be legally distributed. Schily (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What you say doesn't make any sense to me. How can an OSS license be not in conflict with the Urheberrecth, and later when using that license to make changes, those changes be in conflict with the Urheberrecth? Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Prohibiting changes to a work is against the OSS definition. If they can't change the command line syntax and distribute it, it's not free software.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless references in article

Reference 4: ^ "Debian Bug report logs - #265546". http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265546. "Debian Bug report logs - #270060". http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=270060. is not related at all with the statement where it is cited. I will remove it therefore. While the second link of the citation is related to GPL issues with the code, it is not related at all with information in this article. --noamik registered in de.wikipedia.org only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.78.189 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is the problem with registering here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should I bother to do so? I don't want to manage a miriade of different accounts. Would you feel any better if I would register before edits? --92.225.78.44 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Then try a unified login. If you registered before edits, it would help distinguish you from the Schilling meatpuppets that have shown up here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically you are saying: it is more important who said something then what he said? If my edits were from Schilling, they were unacceptable? Or to point it out even more: Jörg Schilling is always wrong because he is Jörg Schilling? I'm not sure this will motivate me to register with en.wikipedia.org (which I still have to do, even with unified login). --noamik --195.37.78.244 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't have to register with the English Wikipedia; that's the whole part of the UL. What Schilling has said is so consistently absurd, self-serving and repetitiously harassing, and supported only by anonymous IPs from his location, that I do discount the value of anything coming from him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is funny, as I say basically the same things Schilling said. I just refrain from calling anyone a lier who has an opposing opinion. If you and Schilling can both live what I wrote now, I ask myself who to blame if no agreement could be found prior to this version. Certainly it is not just Schilling. And what you state about UL does not work for me as my user name is already taken in en.wikipedia.org. --noamik 195.37.78.236 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, if you actually read what has come before, you'll find that he's pushed his own webpages as objective reliable sources, and tried to get cdrkit labeled as being full of bugs. Your implication that I called Schilling a liar is offensive; the only time that word appears on the page is in your writing, and what I wrote above certainly can't be read to make that implication. There is no more and no less agreement now than before you edited the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant Jörg Schilling, when I said I was refraining from calling anyone a lier, not you. Unfortunately he sometimes interprets inconsistencies in others argumentation as lies, which does not help him with getting his arguments heard. --195.37.78.108 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on this page

I am sorry to see that there are some people who are apparently in fear that the Cdrkit article gets unbiased information.

Please stop removing useful information from the article! --Schily (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not useful information, at least not by Wikipedia standards. It violates the WP:VERIFIABILITY core policy by not providing a way for readers to evaluate that those claims are made by an independent party, and WP:NPOV because it goes suggesting what readers should do instead of letting them decide what's better for them - which is against WP:ADVOCACY. If you and IP 66.103.59.145 want unbiased information, write unbiased information and I'll be the first one to support its inclusion - but this ain't it. Diego Moya (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole cdrkit article without this additions violates the WP rules as it contains claims that are verifyable wrong and as it is showing highly POV claims. Thus reverting is not a solution. --Schily (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What claims are wrong, and how do you verify it? Diego Moya (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the article has been written by people from Debian. As Debian started a high profile attack against an OSS project, just because a broken UTF-8 patch was not integrated into mkisofs, extreme care needs to be taken with claims from Debian. The fairy tale with the license problem has been introduced just to disract from ealier attacks made byDebian. Note that Debian started to claim a license problem with cdrecord in Summer 2005, a time when no code from cdrecord has been relicensed.

Please note that in case the GPL is a license that follows the OpenSource definition, it must accept any license change in any other project. There has been a license change February 2005, but this was not a license change in cdrecord (as claimed by Debian) but a license change in separate software that aproximately does the same as David Korn's nmake (and that is of the same age as nmake). Let us assume that the Korn Shell and nmake have both been under GPL in former times, would you claim a license violation in case David Korn would relicense nmake?

The whole article is based on a reverted time line. Debian claims to have just acted on causes but it has been the other way: Dabian started an attack and the License change was an action on the attacks from Debian. Given the fact that it is impossible to falsify the timeline, it should be easy for everyone to verify that Debian gives false claims. He of course needs to read tons of meterial... But this seems to be the trick used by Debian in order to prevent people from unveiling their shenanigans. It is even funny to see that Debian continued to claim a "license problem" and a "GPL problem" in cdrecord even after cdrecord has been converted to be 100% CDDL.

We currently have the situation Debian added a lot of bugs to their fork and stoped working on it on May 6th 2007. Since then, they provide "fixes" to typos only while there are aprox. 100 Bugs against the named software in their bugtracking system. Do you like to be a platform that supports entities like Debian that harm the OSS ecosystem? --Schily (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 user

This feels so wrong. So much like a weird person is out there somewhere that wants to kill data or information which is entirely factual. I have Red Hat Enterprise linux 6 here, fully supported. It can not burn a Blu-Ray data backup disk. The wodim or cdrecord in it is the wrong version and not up to date. The actual version in the source kits at ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily/ are perfect and work. I checked the sha512 signature of the data file written to Blu-Ray as well as a readcd back from the Blu-Ray and it works flawlessly. This wodim thing is years out of date and there should be some mention of the factual data that "cdrecord" in a major distro like Red Hat or Ubuntu is NOT in fact what it looks to be. It simply does not work.

This is like reporting that the Ford Pinto explodes in a rear end collission and someone wants to hide the facts.

Wikipedia should not be a battle ground over basic simple facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.59.145 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you call a basic simple fact this sentence? "Therefore users of wodim should be aware of the vast bug and feature drift presented in wodim whereas cdrecord is kept continuously up to date and provides functionality for blue ray devices, all DVD and CD media as well as localization support for many languages" Diego Moya (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, you should read the Original research policy too. In a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Diego Moya (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section language to a tone acceptable by the wp:NPOV policy. It still needs to be sourced; the previous dumps of the version command are not valid as references.Diego Moya (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You added a lot of "citation needed" tags on statements that are well known and easy to prove facts (like the latest published revision and BluRay support - the latter is available since Summer 2007). Why do you do this?

The section "Fork" is still full of ignorance to wp:NPOV. Given the fact that the claims from Debian (besides the fact that they ignore and reverted the timeline) can only be correct in case that the GPL was a non-free license, what is the reason for keeping such obvious nonsense in a WP article without adding a note? --Schily (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the citation tags because I think articles with a history of disputed edits should be carefully sourced, because if they're easy to prove it shouldn't be difficult to include that reference (it can be a simple link to the release notes of the version which first included BluRay support), and because the edit that included those facts also included lots of opinions and value judgments.

Do you remember the approximate date where the timeline was reverted? I'd like to dig it out to find if it can be sourced. If that's the case I would try to incorporate it to the article. Diego Moya (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Debian claims, they created the fork because of "the license change in cdrecord" and they claim that a license change in cdrecord from February 2005 was the cause for their fork.

In real life, there was no license change in cdrecord but Debian started in Summer 2005 to claim that there was such a change in cdrecord although before May 15 2006, there was no licence change in cdrecord at all.

Well, there was a license change in February 2005 from GPL -> CDDL for "star" (the oldest OSS tar implementation - started in 1982) and "The Schily Makefilesystem" (a software that allows to use just a simple source file name table to compile projects. This project is from 1993 and gives similar features as David Korn's nmake from the same time) but definitely no license change in cdrecord.

Debian attacked the cdrtools project in a really hard way for no reason. As a result, I finally changed the license for cdrecord from GPL to CDDL on May 15 2006. After cdrecord was 100% CDDL, Debian continued to claim, that I caused a GPL violation in cdrecord. It is obvious that their claims have no relation to reality.

The GPL is a project based license and cdrtools is just a collection of several works. Each of the separate works in this colltection is either 100% from one single license or adds a few files under BSD license. This is exactly what is generally accepted in the OSS world. If someone believes that collective works cannot include one work under GPL and another work under a different license, then the GPL needs to be called a non-free license and all Linux distros would be illegal.

BTW: Debian does not only attack cdrtools but similar things (that usually start with adding Debian specific defects to the Debian distributed version) have been seen with Apache, Mozilla and OpenSSL. Debian needs to be seen as a hostile downstram and I believe the WP article for Debian is the right place to place a note on this. --Schily (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OKay, this looks to be a better way to express the issue. I simply think that there should be some mention, in a dispassionate and scientific manner, that when you see cdrecord it is not, in fact, cdrecord. What you get is wodim which can not do what cdrecord does. So this is akin to buying a Ferrari and finding out you just bought a Pontiac Fiero with a weird paintjob and it does not move like, drive like or anything like a Ferrari. A note should be added that wodim does not support blue-ray devices nor does it support all DVD media types or provide drivers to allow such devices to work. The cdrecord source kits do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.59.145 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wodim is based on a cdrecord from September 2004 with Debian specific bugs added and with the mature original DVD-support from 1998 (as found in the original cdrecord) removed and replaced by something that only gives extremely rudimentary support for DVD-R. Given the fact that between 1996 and 2004, there was roughly the same amount of new code added to the original cdrecord than between 2005 and 2010, you can imagine that there is more than just the weak DVD replacement and the missing BluRay code that cause the problems with wodim. --Schily (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've found a couple references that could help clarifying the original claims by Debian, I'll copy them here for later evaluation. Diego Moya (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• [3]
• [4]

The first is unrelated to the cdrtools case, except for the fact that Debian not only attacks me but also attacks Sun.

The second one confirms that Debian attacks OSS authors - not only me. The text includes an attack against Sun and the text is full of easy to prove false claims. --Schily (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What cdrkit calls releases...

The usual interpretation os a "stable" release is a released piece of software that either has no known bugs at release time, or that left over a very small number of bugs and describes in the release notes why these bugs have not been fixes before the release, giving work-arounds.

If you use this gauge, you will have to decide that cdrkit did never ever create a "stable release". This is because every cdrkit version ever released has 100-150 well known bugs that can be found in the various bug tracking systems from the Linux vendors/distributors. Even worse, there are many bugs that have no workaround and that cause cdrkit to become unusable in many cases.

The first release date for something called cdrkit was September 4 2006, the last date was October 18 2010. During this time frame, there have been 16 cdrkit releases, every single of the releases was full of bugs and virtually no new code has been added. Since May 6 2007, only typo fixed have been provided, so you would even need to remove 5 "releases" from the number 16 mentioned before. There is no useful DVD code and there is no BluRay code at all in cdrkit.

During the same period of time, there have been 70 releases from the original cdrtools project. More than 65 of these releases match the criteria for a "stable" release and had no known bug at release time. During the same time frame, the number of lines of code nearly doubled, There is useable DVD support code for all types of DVD media and there is usable support code for all types of BluRay media.

From a perspective of release counts, the cdrtools project has been 7 times more activity and from a perspective of new lines of code (disregarding that the changes in cdrkit just introduced new Debian specific bugs), the cdrtools project is more than 50 times more active than cdrkit.

Given the fact that at least three groups of lawyers told me that there is no license problem in cdrtools (see Talk:Cdrtools#Legal_Opinion.3F), what is the reason for having cdrkit except for causing harm to the OSS community? I believe that we at least should change the main article to reflect the fact that no "stable release" has been published by the project and instead refer to the term "development release". --Schily (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make the kind of inferences you propose. Wikipedia:No original research makes it clear that all its content must be published by an independent reliable source, except for primary sources describing themselves. Given the difficulty to find any independent coverage at all about either cdrkit or cdrtools, I'm tempted even to place a deletion proposal for both articles - thus letting the community decide if these articles have notability for Wikipedia to cover them above a brief note at Optical disc authoring software. Personally I think a stub article is OK to have, but attempts to advance a position beyond what can be referenced are not welcome. Diego Moya (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing fork section

I started to clean up the disputed 'fork' section to add missing sources and make it more readable. Then I realised that every single source on the topic, including the ones I was adding, were primary sources. This violates WP:NOR by any reasonable standard; I've removed the whole thing. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum to publish analysis of what happened here, and the details probably fail notability requirements anyway. I believe it is sufficient to note the occurrence of the fork and give citations of articles which discuss it further. Asuffield (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The article can only win from removing claims from Debian that have been proven to be false a long time ago and that just prove that Debian started a dispute on the expense of the users of cdrtools. A WP article on cdrtools or cdrkit should contain technical information - the social aspects belong into the Debian article. BTW: the most recent release of cdrtools is 3.01a05 from June 5 2011. Regarding localization, we need translators for the texts in cdrtools and other schily software to various languages. --Schily (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't care about truth here, we care about verifiability. On a more personal note, you need to focus on Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs. Asuffield (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you understand that verifyable facts also lead to correct statements, you got it and BTW: as the removed parts in the article intentionally omitted facts that are important to understand the dispute correclty, the article was not balanced. WP cannot always contain facts only but in such a case, it needs to be balanced at least. --Schily (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Where balanced is defined as "as written by Schily". Because anybody else is unbalanced and bias. Schily by definition is neutral? --87.174.37.97 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wording

I'm reverting this edit because of the NNPOV wording added by 99.20.192.106.

It's NNPOV to say that a party states something, while another one states its opinion about that. Whatever Debian developers state, that's their opinion. Whatever J.S. states, that's his opinion. They're both claims, and thus your task as a Wikipedia editor is to present them as such -- regardless of who you believe to be right.

--151.75.124.124 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Using affirm is a typical case of WP:WEASEL, because the party whose blog is linked is not a copyright lawyer IIRC. Granted, saying the other party asserts something can also be thought of as weasel wording, but the primary meaning of that verb does not necessarily imply a factual basis, so I didn't bother to change that. Either way, now that I've refreshed my memory of this talk page, the point raised in the previous section stands - these are all primary sources and they are insufficient for a decent article in any case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, changed affirms into asserts. Regarding the sources, the Wikipedia policies allow for sourcing claims (not facts) with self-published material. This means that the point in the previous section does not stand at all. (see the comment by Diego in in this section) --151.75.27.68 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(For the change - good.) The general point about using only a bunch of primary sources does stand - an encyclopedia article is not the proper place for an original analysis of this matter - it should instead reference someone else's analysis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case, please try to avoid biased claims in the WP article. Not mentioning the timeline (as previously done in the article) distorts facts. --Schily (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Joy - Reporting claims is not the same as presenting facts, and they do require different kinds of sources. You may add third party sources to the article, if you wish, but this has nothing to do with the content in the section "History", which is properly sourced, according to the Wikipedia policies. Please read the page that I linked you, and these ones, or please ask for information on the WP:Help desk to have this concept explained.

No, a text is not properly sourced if it relies on primary sources. BTW you may wish to lose the condescending tone :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Schily - I'm sorry I undid your edits, but if you like to see the claims by J.S. in the article, you will have to present them in a neutral manner - so please rewrite these words from a neutral point of view, if you can. Anyway, if a reader wants to learn more about the claims, he or she will follow the links in the notes, and will be able to read the entire story (from the point of view of both sides) by himself or herself. Take that into account. --151.75.91.6 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Supressing facts is the same as distributing lies. Your edit removes a neutral view from the article. A neutral view includes all related facts and it is a proven fact that the license change is a result of the the attacks from Debian but definitely not the cause (see timeline that cannot be changed). I like to give you the chance to restore the article, but if you don't do that, I'll do it. --Schily (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The words attack and broken patch, as well as the statement that the license arose specifically because of the patch rejection, are not neutral at all, because they express a point of view. There's no place for them on the article, unless you re-write them in a neutral way, or provide a third-party, reliable source. The points in this paragraph will be useful to you. And be aware of the fact that we care about verifiability, not truth. --151.75.59.9 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why you use the "majestetis pluralis"? You may personally dislike some words, but cdrtools was attacked by Debian and something that does not work and gives many compiler warnings is broken. If you don't like the words, it is up to you to make a better proposal as long as it does not try to bend facts. --Schily (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you find a third-party, reliable source that states that cdrkit is broken, then you may (and should) write that into the article, and place a link to the source. Otherwise, that is only an editor's opinion, and as such is not allowed on Wikipedia.

As a side note, I wrote we to mean all of us in the Wikipedian editors community, because it seems that you do not know what Wikipedian editors mean by the word neutrality. It was not my intention to use the pluralis majestatis, and I'm sorry if it appears to be such. --151.75.59.9 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you really are a member of the WP community and if you really know what neutrality is, I would expect that you should be interested in a neutral position in articles. The article in the way you modified it bends facts by ommiting important information and by reverting the timeline. We thus cannot leave the article in the biased way you changed it. I hope you understand that and that you will not start again to introduce biased claims in the article. --Schily (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Schilly, a neutral position must be based on the available reliable sources. If you think the May 2004 mkisofs patch is a relevant fact to the license disputes you should at the very least provide links to the online discussions of its rejection, so that Wikipedia editors and readers can assess its importance and accuracy. A neutral third party discussing that fact would be even better. And you really should refrain from editing the article yourself. Any inclusion you want made, post it here to the talk page and let it be handled by the other editors. Diego (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Schily. Please refrain from editing this article, since you have a strong conflict of interest here. Thank you. --Chire (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've moved down the history section further, since that shouldn't be a prime part of the article. It's about the software and what it is good for, not about whether or not the authors/maintainers like each other. --Chire (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, well, that was unexpectedly obvious.

In May 2004, a Debian packetizer started to attack the cdrtools project after his incomplete and non-working UTF-8 patch for mkisofs could not be accepted by the upstream project. This was later turned into a license dispute [...]

Do you seriously think this is encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not the place to describe one's personal grievances that are by default biased and have no demonstrable bearing on article content. I'm sorry you feel wronged, but an article about software is simply not the right forum to address that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if it needs saying, it's a violation of WP:BLP to talk about people in such a manner that makes it look like a Wikipedia article smears them without proper references. Just like we must avoid any biased characterization of your own actions, the same applies to the other party. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Differences between cdrtools and cdrkit

Per WP:PRESERVE, I'm copying here this link to a revision where the author of cdrtools points out several differences between the original and the fork. Although this information is not verifiable and doesn't belong in the article, it may be useful to someone interested in the software as a starting point to review its features. This is the deleted content: Diego (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cdrecord correctly warns user when its unable to access device with root privileges. Root privileges are required for sending non-generic SCSI commands, which are required by some burners. Without root access, Linux kernel allows only generic commands that may lead to inaccessible CD/DVD/Blu-Ray drives or unpredictable behavior.

Cdrecord has a mature DVD support, where's cdrkit has this support replaced by much lower quality code, that misses some vital functionality.

All recent Cdrecord enhancements like better CUE Sheet for CDs support and Blu-Ray support are missing.

Mkisofs from Cdrkit still contains very old bugs, which are long fixed in Cdrecord.

No multi-extent files (>4GiB) support in cdrkit.

Cdrkit misses "find" command in mkisofs, which allow to prevent creating duplicate files.

Cdrkit has no Rock Ridge Version-1.12 and correctly working hard links support.

Cdrtools supports correct link counts on all files and directories.

Cdrtools uses different tool, instead of GNU getlongopt CLI interface, which allows it to detect typo's in the options.

Cdrtools supports working UTF-8 based locales and supports iconv based translations. Cdrkit claims to do the same, but disabled key features from mkisofs with the attempt to support UTF-8 and may create images with incorrect file name lengths without even printing a warning.

Cdrtools has much better UDF support (such as support for symlinks, userids/groupids and permissions as well as support for MacOS extensions). These features are missing in Cdrkit.

The mkisofs of Cdrkit will create unusable filesystems in some cases when Joliet is used. This is a bug that never existed in Cdrtools.

This list could be seen as a WP:COPYVIO of this page written by Schily himself. It definitely is very biased and not a reliable third-party souce. Take it with a grain of salt. --93.133.215.251 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of grain of salt you are refering to, but wodim was completely useless PX-712A and produced problems clearing dvd media on my pioneer drive. I'm pretty sure he is right, although he definitely talks too much, guess because he is still p155ed off which is understandable. This is all due to the lack of HR, splitting where splitting makes no sense, makes no sense. 93.129.52.51 (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To format a DVD, just use dvd+rw-format from growisofs. That seems to be the usual Schily-and-Debian-hate-free choice. --77.4.87.88 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate more on this Fear, uncertainty and doubt heavily promoted by Schily: for example "mkisofs" is irrelevant, as it does no longer appear to be used. No wonder that it is not up to date... The replacements seem to be GenIsoFs from LibBurnia and Xorriso. GenIsoFs also claims to have blueray support. And for DVD I believe I've always been using Growisofs, not cdrkit, too. Half of the claims seem to be directed on mkisofs, not the actual writing functionality?!? In fact it appears as if Debian has mostly abandoned cdrkit in favor of libburnia? I remember having read that they planned to do so. If the plan never was to continue developing cdrkit but instead use libburnia, then cdrkit making less progress is old news, too. --93.133.215.251 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Will look into it, thanks for the tips! 93.129.52.51 (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

---

This is pretty sufficient, thank you! We do need comparison of the two to remove the "non-verifiable" argument, so this can be published. PS. I don't understand why everyone hates Schily. (1) He was pushed into accepting low-quality UTF code. Funny point is that now cdrtools does have working UTF, but cdrkit UTF is broken; mostly due to the fork was quickly abandoned, just after announcement - yet we had a guy maintaining it for ages whom we lost. (2) He was bullied further using GPL as basis, so he just HAD to ditch to CDDL; and I guess only because CDDL looks like similar to GPL to him (schily). Yes, he is wrong here. (3) Debian guys just forked all his work and removed his copyrights pushing the conflict even further instead of calming down and resolving it. I mean wtf... You could do these patches standalone, if they are not accepted upstream. What reaction did you expect from him for such disrespect. :/ We should be happy he provides Linux builds even today. The result of all these actions by people hiding behind Debian are: users have broken optical media support. the fork is unmaintained and buggy. the original developer is pissed off at us. Good work! 77.180.169.93 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

These claims are not supported by anyone else except by Schily. In fact, the list above is copied from his web page. And he has been doing the same on his other projects, too. They are all 1-man shows. If you look at the history from an other perspective than his, Debian tried various ways of resolving the issue, but Schily kept on attacking them (usually very aggressively against single persons) so the only workable way was to abandon him, and fork the project. So there is more than Schilys side to this story; you should definitely try to see both! Everbody would like to have better CD/DVD/BD support (well in fact, I never had any problems with cdrkit!) But if nobody can work with him, his software isn't really ready to use either. Cdrtools is his most successful project. Yet, there doesn't seem to be any contributor, that continuously works with him. A project this big with a single author, it could die any day if he ever loses interest. It should be maintained by a whole bunch of people! --93.133.215.251 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have many valid points. I'm just damn unhappy how it resolved... Thanks! 93.129.52.51 (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, again

I have to request one more time that User:Schily refrain from making edits to the article. I've seen that in recent days you've been mostly doing maintenance edits to external links at Cdrtools, and I've remained silent as those are likely uncontroversial. But today you've made this edit that introduces bias to the description of a competing product - it basically changes a neutral narrative of "development has shifted from cdrkit to liburnia" to a POV one of "cdrkit has this undesirable property".

While technically removing unreferenced content should not be controversial, in this case the selective edit can be seen as against neutrality. This is why you should avoid editing the article itself even for small tweaks, and should limit yourself to proposing them in the talk page. I have no problem with making those maintenance edits for you when they're not problematic. Diego (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you believe my edit was not neutral, then you have a conflict of interest and should not edit this article. If you have a problem with the text I left over, you should contact the author of the related text. Schily (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New false claims

It is no fun to add false claims to an article.

With a time-difference of only 2 minutes, User:Knutjb and Special:Contributions/2001:464A:38F6:0:3A2C:4AFF:FE6E:C19 added false claims. Claims that only apply to the original cdrtools but not to the "fork" that was initiated by Debian in May 2004, when Debian stopped to update their distro from the original sources.

Given that the original cdrtools did more than double their features since then, it should be obvious that there is a significant difference between the features of the original and the features of this "fork".

Be careful not to add false claims again. Schily (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC) User:Schily should stop deleting part of the page as it is Vandalism. He should instead update the feature list to what cdrkit can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutjb (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Schily, always up for a fight... his definition of "false" is: "does not agree with my personal opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.243.149 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Knutjb You again added false claims that are even proven to be false by the citation you used. Stop this edit warring! Schily (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Annoying Affair

This affair was so annoying, but wonder why there are still facts missing. Jörg Schilling started selling closed source licenses of his cdrecord with unlimited speed option at some time. Obviously, there were no momnetary reasons, because it was impossible to obtain such a license (no answer). He just wanted to demonstrate how important his code was for the project.

I have experienced that personally and my impression was, that Mr. Shilling was mentally und psyhically incapable of understanding the fundamental base of Free Software (free as in Free Speech, not as in free beer). --Ghettobuoy (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The actual issue was that commercial programs ripped the burning code from cdrecord and sold it as their own, ignoring the conditions of the license agreement. So when Jörg added DVD burning code to cdrecord, he provided it as closed source software only to keep the competition honest. As soon as closed source vendors started writing their own DVD burning code, Mr. Schilling open sourced the relevant code sections. I don't see the problem here. No license was violated and no parts of cdrecord that were previously open source were held back. Having a project that is partially open source and partially closed is not uncommon in the industry, so I'm not really sure what your issue is. I wonder why you feel the need to shit all over him over this decision. --FUZxxl (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)