Talk:Cdrkit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cdrkit article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 • info • 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)

[edit] 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)