Talk:Cdrtools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm unsure whether to say that cdrtools is a program or a collection of programs. Should cdrecord and mkisofs be mentioned in the article as a part of cdrtools?

I definitely think so. I was redirected from cdrecord and I'm betting mkisofs redirects as well. I was hoping to find some help with the blasted program. If I ever figure it out properly, I might post some stuff if no one else does. marnues 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact it is acollection of programs including those mentioned in the unsigned above comment. I haveexpanded the article a bit to include thos things. I tried to take the German version as base, but as my German knowledge is too poor i couldn't translate it properly nor in its entirety. So, maybe someone could still add some things by translating the German or French versions, which seem to have some information still missing here. --Pfc432 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think cdda2wav is in cdrtools, although I'm not sure he's the original author of that. Also, the GPLed version of cdrecord never recorded DVDs; that required a pro version. I should mention the dvdrecord command in dvdrtools... - Pronoiac 07:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, what is "discographics", and what were the problems that led to the change in licensing? 05:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removals by 195.37.79.37

I am rolling back to the revision before Jörg Schilling's edits. Jörg, if you want to remove content again, explain why here. Regarding the removal of the link to cdrkit because it would be a dead fork, cdrkit is not known to be dead. If you want to remove the link on the basis that it is, provide evidence. Note that even if cdrkit was dead, removing the link to it would probably be a bad idea. --Chealer 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the last release of cdrkit was 3 months ago. -- Yuhong 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to keep Wikipedia neutral

Do not add unproven claims.

Do not edit attempts to show the other side of a controversial statements 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.210.114 (talk) 09:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"Do not attempt to show the other side..."? That's crazy. I'm not trying to add unproven claims, I'm asking you to source yours. I have no idea where you got that date from for the shutdown of cdrkit. If it's real, source it. Anyway, I've done as you've said, and removed one of the controversial sections. Niten 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non neutral claims in the editorial parts

Do not put non neutral claims in the editorial part of WP.

It is sufficient to have these claims readable in pointers in the links part. The specific wording that was removed tries to create the impression that there is a license problem but there is none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.230.77 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "In the opinion of most observers, this change makes it impossible to legally distribute cdrtools binaries since the requirements of the GPL and CDDL conflict."

I'm putting back this sentence. Do not remove it again on the basis that it is an unproven legal claim. It is a statistic about the opinion of observers on a legal topic.--Chealer 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the tone of that statement to be modified to not state "most observers" because at first- and second-glance it reads at worst like a blatant non-POV statement and at best like an unbecoming weasel word. Re-wording the statement with a more positive tone would improve the article greatly. My suggestion is "The distribution of cdrtools binaries is problematic because the requirements of the GPL and CDDL conflict, according to observers." That statement is much more encyclopaedic than the negative tone that the user Chealer threatens an edit war over. --KJRehberg (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major distributions using cdrtools?

Are there any major distributions that are (still) using cdrtools?--Hhielscher (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know if it's a major distribution for you :-) but Slackware still provides updated packages of cdrtools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.24.247 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)