Created attachment 349646 [details] the resulting (bad) ISO Description of problem: When I try to create an ISO image with all of the contents in a directory specified with the -root flag, I end up with an image where all of the contents are in a new subdirectory of the one specified with the flag. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): genisoimage-1.1.9-4.fc11.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. mkdir foo 2. genisoimage -r -root foo -o foo.iso foo Actual results: The image contains /foo/ and /foo/soimage/. Expected results: The image should contain /foo/ and nothing else. Additional info: This worked correctly using the version of genisoimage in Fedora 10.
If I do this: mkdir -p bar/foo cd bar genisoimage -r -o foo.iso . I get the expected output, which is an ISO containing /foo/ only. So, it looks like the -root flag is the culprit. My guess is that the string "soimage" is being read off the end of a buffer or something like that...
I recommend you to use the official program "mkisofs" from cdrtools: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ http://cdrecord.berlios.de the fork you are using is known to be full of bugs.
(In reply to comment #2) > I recommend you to use the official program "mkisofs" > from cdrtools: > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ > http://cdrecord.berlios.de > > the fork you are using is known to be full of bugs. It would be great if Fedora would distribute a version of mkisofs which contains fewer bugs. Maybe you should change the license to something GPL-compatible so they can.
I am not sure whether you understand the problem correctly. Redhat is currently distributing software that is in conflict with the copytright law and thus cannot be legally distributed. The software in addition is buggy. The original software is properly maintained implements a lot more features and is fully legal. This has been verified by several lawyers (including the Sun legal department). Maybe it helps to read this: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html There is no need to change anything in the original software as the original software is fully compliant with all related licenses.
(In reply to comment #4) > I am not sure whether you understand the problem correctly. What I understand is that you and RedHat's legal counsel do not agree on the interpretation of the CDDL and the GPL, and it is unlikely that you or they will change their minds about this. I will not offer an opinion on who is right in this situation. But it isn't even necessary to determine who is right to resolve the situation. You could dual-license cdrecord under both the CDDL and GPL, and that would satisfy everyone involved. Presumably that would also fix the bug I've reported here.
What I see is that Redhats legal department was not yet involved at all. It seems that some laymen prevent the case from being seen by the redhat lawyers. Redhat is currently in an unlawful situation as redhat publishes a fork that is in conflict with the copyright law. Why do you beleve that redhat does not try to fix the current unlawful situation that results from the fact that redhat publishes a fork that cannot be legally distributed? On the other side, nobody from redhat did make a claim _why_ there should be a problem with distributing the legal original source. As mentioned before: Sun is the most careful company in the OSS area and Sun does of course ship the legal original software.
(In reply to comment #6) > What I see is that Redhats legal department was not > yet involved at all. It seems that some laymen prevent > the case from being seen by the redhat lawyers. A reply from Fedora's legal counsel is right here, at the end of a thread you started on the fedora-legal-list in June: http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00506.html Did you not see this? > Redhat is currently in an unlawful situation as redhat > publishes a fork that is in conflict with the copyright law. > > Why do you beleve that redhat does not try to fix the current > unlawful situation that results from the fact that redhat > publishes a fork that cannot be legally distributed? Fedora doesn't do anything about the situation which you claim is unlawful because their lawyer is telling them that no such situation exists. You cannot expect them to disregard the advice of their lawyer. But there is no need to resolve whether the fork is legal. If you were to dual-license cdrtools, this issue would go away, as there would be no reason for anyone to distribute this fork any longer. Everyone wins. > On the other side, nobody from redhat did make a claim > _why_ there should be a problem with distributing the legal > original source. Yes, they have. See claim III in the message linked above.
Sorry, but you seem to be missinformed. The person you are qouting is not part of the Redhat legal department but an uninformed laymen. If you carefully read his claims, you will see that he did never talk to the rehat legal department and that he is missing legal basics. The mail you are quoting does not contain a single valid legal argument. I am in hope that some time the redhat legal department will pop up and correctly deal with the problems redhat currently has from distributing software that is in conflict with the copyright law. This person called "tom" does not do redhat a favor by tring to hide the problem from the legal department.
(In reply to comment #8) > Sorry, but you seem to be missinformed. The person you > are qouting is not part of the Redhat legal department > but an uninformed laymen. I see that I misread. Mr. Callaway is the head of the the Fedora legal team, but so far as I can tell, he isn't a lawyer himself. Nonetheless, I see no evidence there to imply that he's hiding anything from anyone. > The mail you are quoting does not contain a single valid legal > argument. I am in hope that some time the redhat legal department > will pop up and correctly deal with the problems redhat currently > has from distributing software that is in conflict with the > copyright law. It is wholly irrelevant whether the email I was quoting contains any valid arguments at all. That was not my point. My point was that the people associated with Fedora who make these decisions believe that the these arguments are valid, and that's what matters. They believe that what you are asking them to do is illegal, and you believe that what they are already doing is illegal. Would you do something that you believe to be illegal just because someone is asking you to? But the whole situation can be resolved without anyone changing their minds about what is legal, simply by dual-licensing. You say yourself on the cdrecord site that you switched to CDDL because it gives more freedom than the GPL. If you dual-license CDDL/GPL, doesn't that give even more freedom than the CDDL alone?
Even if he might be the head, it is obvious that he did never ask any lawyer about the supposed problem. If he did, he would have been able to give a useful and legally valid reply. Lawyers tell me that there is no problem with my software. If a laymen still believes that there is a problem, we seem to have a problem with this laymen. Let me conclude: Redhat currently publishes software that is in conflict with the copyright. When will redhat fix this situation?
(In reply to comment #10) > Even if he might be the head, it is obvious that he did never > ask any lawyer about the supposed problem. If he did, he would > have been able to give a useful and legally valid reply. > > Lawyers tell me that there is no problem with my software. > If a laymen still believes that there is a problem, we seem > to have a problem with this laymen. It makes no difference if they are laymen, lawyers, or the pope. They believe you are asking them to do something illegal. > Let me conclude: Redhat currently publishes software > that is in conflict with the copyright. When will redhat > fix this situation? 1. Dual-license, so that Fedora will be able to distribute cdrecord under terms which they believe to be legal, or 2. Sue Fedora and win, to make them stop distributing the fork you think is illegal. If you don't do one of these things, I see no way for this ever to be resolved. And if you are unwilling to do #1, then you should explain why not.
There is no legal problem with the original software, so there is absolutely no problem for redhat to distribute the original software as is. This has been proven by many lawyers. I am not going to be a target of blackmailing by hostile people. If Redhat continues to distribute illegal software, redhat needs to be prepared for being sued.
(In reply to comment #12) > There is no legal problem with the original software, > so there is absolutely no problem for redhat to distribute > the original software as is. This has been proven by many > lawyers. I am not going to be a target of blackmailing by > hostile people. I do not see how resolving the problem by dual-licensing would amount to blackmail. From your point of view, there should be no difference between dual-licensing and licensing only under the CDDL; from Fedora's point of view, this is a major improvement of the situation. I do not see how anyone loses by doing this. Please explain what it is that you think you gain by licensing under the CDDL only.
I am not sure what your interests yre.... You did never verify that there is a problem but you claim that there is a need to introduce dual licansing to "solve it", this sounds absurd. What you are doing is called FUD. In terms of lawyers this is called slander. From looking at your mail address, you seem to be an uninvolved thrid party, so what are your interests?
(In reply to comment #14) > I am not sure what your interests yre.... My interest is in getting the bug I reported solved. One way to do that is to get cdrecord distributed with Fedora, as presumably cdrecord does not have this bug. > You did never verify that there is a problem but > you claim that there is a need to introduce dual licansing > to "solve it", this sounds absurd. I'm sorry it sounds absurd to you. It sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Here is the problem: 1. The decision makers at Fedora believe that they cannot legally distribute cdrecord. 2. The only way that Fedora will distribute cdrecord is if the decision makers there believe they can distribute it legally. 3. The decision makers at Fedora believe they could distribute cdrecord legally if it were dual-licensed CDDL/GPL. 4. You could dual-license cdrecord as CDDL/GPL. Which one of these three claims do you dispute?
You are correct, cdrecord has no known bugs and if a bug is reported, this bug is typically fixed within a few hours. If the decicion makers at fedora believe that they cannot distribute cdrecord, then they are incorrectly informed and would need to ask a lawyer. What these people currently do is called slander as they claim that there is a problem but do not even tell what kind of problem this might be. Nonexistent problems cannot be solved! Where do you see a problem?
(In reply to comment #16) > > Where do you see a problem? > Please address the two questions I've asked you. * Which of the four numbered claims I presented in comment #15 do you dispute? * What do you see as the advantage of CDDL-only licensing?
I am sorry, you would first need to explain me what "license problems" you see in the original software. How would you reply if I asked you: "Do you still club your wife?"
(In reply to comment #18) > I am sorry, you would first need to explain me what > "license problems" you see in the original software. > > How would you reply if I asked you: "Do you still club your wife?" This presupposes that I have clubbed my wife at some point in the past. The claims I am asking you to evaluate are not analogous to this question. To be clear, I am *not* presupposing that there are licensing problems. Whether there are actually licensing problems is irrelevant. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are about the *beliefs* of decision makers at Fedora, not about whether there are licensing problems. Claim 4 is about your capability to dual-license. None of these claims presuppose that there are licensing problems. I will not explain whether I personally see any license problems, because it is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Furthermore, the second question I posed, namely---what do you see as the advantage of CCDL-only licensing---only presupposes that you do see some advantage to it. It would help me to understand your position if you would explain what you think that advantage is.
If you don't believe that there is a license problem, why do you ask me to do things that only make sense if there actually was a license problem? Redhat distributes star, so it is obvious that redhat has no problem with the CDDL. Distributors like redhat should accept the license decision that has been made by the author. The license of cdrtools has been changes in order to defend it against some agressors. The main agressor was a non-cooperative downstream package maintainer from Debian.
(In reply to comment #20) > If you don't believe that there is a license problem, why > do you ask me to do things that only make sense if there > actually was a license problem? Please don't presume that you know my views about whether there is a license problem. I have not said either way. Anyway, I am not asking you to do things which only make sense if there actually were a license problem. Dual-licensing may make no difference from your point of view, but it makes a huge difference for many other people. If X is some statement, then there is a difference between "X is true" and "Bob believes X is true". If Bob believes that there is cheese in his sandwich, then what matters for how he acts is his belief, not whether there is in fact cheese in his sandwich. If Bob still believes that there is cheese on his sandwich after you've tried to convince him otherwise, then you should not be surprised when Bob acts like he has a cheese sandwich. Furthermore, if it costs you nothing to humor Bob and it makes him happier, shouldn't you do it? Is it really worth fighting with Bob over whether his sandwich has cheese on it? This is precisely analogous to the dual-licensing situation with cdrtools. > The license of cdrtools has been changes in order to defend > it against some agressors. The main agressor was a non-cooperative > downstream package maintainer from Debian. In what way, exactly, does the license change help you defend cdrtools?
Dual licensing is a big problem and could seriously harm a project. There are well-known examplesfor problems thar result from dual licensing. Everything I did with cdrtools was to defend the code against malicious people and to ensure that the code will stay free as long as possible. The GPL is intentionally missinterpreted by well-known people and unfortunately, there are too many people that do not realize that the missinterpretation would cause all known Linux distributions illegal in case that the claims would be orthogonally applied to all related cases. The GPL contains many claims that cannot be claimed in court. See: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf Why not using a license that only contains demands that would stand in court? I can verify that the explanations from Lawrence Rosen about the GPL are true as I am the first person who tried to defend cdrtools against GPL abusage (long before Harald Welte did start his campaign). For this reason, I know exactly what cannot be claimed in court. The license change helped to verify that the non-cooperative downstream package maintainers from Debian were intentionally spreading FUD as they did not change their claims after the license change even though the license change did make all their claims _obviously_ void.
(In reply to comment #22) > Dual licensing is a big problem and could seriously harm a project. > There are well-known examplesfor problems thar result from dual > licensing. Everything I did with cdrtools was to defend the code > against malicious people and to ensure that the code will stay free > as long as possible. Could you describe in particular what problems might arise with dual licensing cdrutils CDDL/GPL?
One problem is that people could create enhancements under only one of the licenses. But I did give aou already other reasons why it is apropriate to avoid the GPL. I don't like to use the GPL for my own software after I have been attacked using an incorrect interpretation of the GPL. Avoiding the GPL means avoinding the related bigots. Anyway: I already pointed out why the is no need to introduce dual licensing.
(In reply to comment #24) > One problem is that people could create enhancements under > only one of the licenses. But I did give aou already other > reasons why it is apropriate to avoid the GPL. I don't like > to use the GPL for my own software after I have been attacked > using an incorrect interpretation of the GPL. Avoiding the GPL > means avoinding the related bigots. > > Anyway: I already pointed out why the is no need to introduce dual licensing. Ok, I can see now that this is hopeless. Thanks for your time. I'll devote my efforts to getting the bug fixed in cdrkit instead.
My impression is that you did never try do do anything that could help. Did you ask redhat to stop their stubborness? Did you try to get redhat into a legal way that is based on distributing the original cdrtools instead of the illegal fork? Why do you believe that it makes sense for you to put effort into illegal software? You cannot distribute cdrkit as cdrkit is in conflict with the copyright law. Your intention seems to be useless for me....
build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1597935
You did take code from the original sources without mentioning this! Are you interested in making the fork even m ore illegal than it already is?
(In reply to comment #27) > build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1597935 Thanks for the fix. Will this be backported to Fedora 11?
cdrkit-1.1.9-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cdrkit-1.1.9-6.fc11
(In reply to comment #29) > (In reply to comment #27) > > build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1597935 > > Thanks for the fix. Will this be backported to Fedora 11? Pushed to f11. Now just wait. enjoy ;)
cdrkit-1.1.9-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
I can confirm that the fix pushed out to F11 works. Thanks very much for your help!