From: Fred Maxwell <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:36:24 -0500

Johan wrote:

> You're such a nice guy to argue with ;-).

Thank you. So are you.

> Get real. Many companies have great interest in my --and your-- data.
> We all know that. Does directed SPAM mean anything to you?

Look at my domain name and guess.

> > He's developing a commercial SDK that he wants to sell.
>
> That's okay. There are ways to organize that.

And he's chosen the traditional and most market-proven way to do so: closed
source. That doesn't make him, or his application, bad.

> Your statement, not mine.

No, it is my interpretation of what your statements mean. If it is wrong,
correct me.

> > Also, he may not want a bunch of hacks who know little about CD
> > hardware mucking up EAC and giving the program a bad name.
>
> That's okay. There are ways to organize that.

Again, he's chosen the traditional, market-proven way to do that: keep the
package closed source.

> Yes, indeed, that's my choice. So EAC does not work for me. Now I'm
> sure it can be ported to other OS as well, but it is his choice not to
> do so. So EAC does not work for me, which --for me-- makes it a bad
> application.

No, it makes Linux a bad OS for you for CD ripping. I've shown you an
application that does exactly what you need and in a polished, efficient
manner and you choose to limit yourself to an OS that does not allow you to
run it. That's why I have a system with drive drawers onto which I have
loaded several distros of Linux (Mandrake, Lycoris), Solaris 9, FreeBSD,
BeOS, and even an older version of Windows. I choose the best application
for what I want to do and then run it on whatever OS it requires.

> > So now you're implying that Andre Wiethoff might have violated the
> > GPL copyright on cdparanoia?
>
> I have no means to find out whether this is, or is not, the case. I
> withdraw the remark.

Thank you.

> > You open source zealots have no shame. 'Anyone who won't give away
> > his software must be suspected of being a criminal.'
>
> Your statement, not mine.

No, it is not my "statement." It is me summarizing your earlier remarks in
which you suggested that EAC's author might have stolen copyrighted code
from CD Paranoia or may have included malicious code.
 
> > I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you lure children into your
> > home where you molest and kill them.
>
> That's enough. I quit talking to you until you formally apologize.

Oh, I see. You're allowed to suggest, with no evidence whatsoever, that the
author of EAC may have committed a criminal act of copyright infringement
and may have planted spyware and malicious code into the software. You
can't see into his application, so you're feel free to suggest, in a public
forum, that you "wouldn't be surprised" to learn that the author was a
criminal. Okay, I can't see into your home, so why can't I suggest that you
might be keeping the public out in order to hide some specific form of
criminal activity? The only difference is that my comment was clearly just
an exaggerated analogy to make a point, while yours was casting actual
doubts on the honesty of EAC's author.

I'll show you the same courtesy that you showed Andre Wiethoff:

I have no means to find out whether this is, or is not, the case. I
withdraw the remark.

Regards,
  Fred Maxwell
Received on 2003-12-20