Talk:Cdrkit

message: 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)
thread_title:  not 'multi' platform ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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: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,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,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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong claims about the GPL in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources in the article 

message: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Preventing certain changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: And what, pray tell, is the problem with registering here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Useless references in article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What cdrkit calls releases... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing fork section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Differences between cdrtools and cdrkit 

message: I have to request one more time that  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest, again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New false claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Annoying Affair