BLKMGK

Okay, I added an 8th data disk to my system a week or two ago. Recently I had some issues on my network where UNC naming ceased working. During the troubleshooting process I rebooted the NAS. when it came up it announced that it had found a "new" disk and asked to add it. Puzzled I said yes figuring that it would see the filesystem and no biggie. Well, it wanted to format the disk and refused to bring up the disk otherwise. I allowed it to format the disk - all data on it lost. As it happens this disk had little on it - a few "videos" but nothing I cannot get back. I'm running the first beta build that had come out a bit ago. Any ideas as to what occured? It's like it hadn't ever seen the disk before. I stopped the array before shutting it down - am puzzled but would like to learn from this to prevent it from occuring in the future

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=1723262&sku=THD-500A&CMP=EMC-TIGEREMAIL&SRCCODE=WEM1089C Still not super cheap but getting there! Hrm, just noted that this is with an $80 rebate. I HATE rebates but if you're willling I think that's the best I've seen on 500Gig Seagates so far.

I *may* have stumbled across a potential "fix" for the UDMA errors!!! Mind you I'm not ever seeing them but reading up on another Linux based NAS I stumbled across a thread where these guys had the same sorts of issues. They figured out a way to stop it by reducing the DMA access. http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1458967&forum_id=507589 Aparrently there's a way to reduce the DMA access level to solve this using utilities. The drive manufacturers have utilities and there's a utlity in BSD too so maybe something exists in Linux too however the manufacturer stuff is better since it sets it and sticks. Hope that helps some!

Well, the legality of the archival copies is a point of contention. For every person you see who says it's one way you'll; find others who say otherwise. Frankly until it's tested in court who can be sure? You'll note that to date the DMCA has yet to be tested in any capacity I'm aware of - each case has either been settled or dropped. Ask the average person on the street if backing up a DVD is any different than backing up an album, CD, or cassette and see what they say. Last I checked breaking the speed limit was illegal as well but I give it more thought than I do backing up a DVD - the DMCA is flawed period. As to the cries about compliance. The time to consider compliance is generally BEFORE a product is ever shipped. If the code never sees the light of day, if it's never distributed, then releasing source isn't a question. But if you intend to distribute then the rules of the road are pretty clear and Tom was likely aware of this. No mention of compliance was made that I recall until I said something on the AVS Forums about. Tom didn't try to fight this and he did comply so I see no reason to get too worked up. However things could've gone alot smoother for everyone involved if the code had been released from the start. He really has done the release smartly IMO although it would be even nicer if the source were available for DL - as a Torrent if bandwidth is an issue. By making the driver code available but closing the source of the management code he ensures compliance while still making sure he won't lose his business. Hopefully folks can get down to tweaking and help him out now and this can be put behind everyone.... Edit: fixed a weird typo heh

I honestly think having another set of eyes on the code might be nice. There are currently some performance issues going on and it would be nice to get some input as to what the problem might be. If I could figure out how to get at the code I'd be happy to help. Will poke at it as soon as I've got a free moment to do so, Linux expert I am not. I find few parallels between backing up a legally purchased DVD - a right granted by Fair Use and the taking advantage of the donated work of a worldwide group of folks. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, it also makes allowances for archival backups. The software that allowed this is in a gray area IMO - it was taken off the market in the US only after it was determined that the software was primarily a tool for pirating DVDs rather than making legal backups. Anyone with a small child who used the software could probably tell you otherwise but whatever. I lose little sleep over flaunting the DMCA. My point is that doing something considered legal via an illegal means is, in my eyes, way different. Allowing for something but making the tools to do it illegal is a bit silly - unless of course you're the music and movie industries Now, if Tom REALLY wanted to sidestep this whole mess he could probably just grab the FreeNAS code, based on FreeBSD, and go nutz. That code is licensed BSD and as such I believe he would have a much freer hand in what he does with it. He might also find that hardware support wasn't as robust etc. etc. <shrug> Personally I'm satisfied with what Tom has done with this at this point....

Tom, I know that right now we're limited to 12 drives. Is there any chance we might be able to add still more drives to a single box using the onboard SATA controller? I'm about to max my box out and was just wondering if that might be possible - wretched excess and all that

A direct link on Outpost would be helpful as I'm not finding this particular drive. Supposedly COSTCO has 400Gig drives by Seagate for $199 which is what BestBuy had them for last week but I've not been in a store to confirm this.

Honestly if that was the same error I couldn't make heads nor tails of it from the writeup you linked. <shrug> I do remember seeing a similiar error once before with the older software while swapping a drive but it was a good little while ago and I think I wrote it off as a loose cable. This one was pretty repeatable though! Tonight I spun up an old Parity drive in a new slot. Seemed a bit odd the way it came up as it found the new drive, offered to zero it, and then later when I came back I had to do a format. Not sure if everything worked out normally as it's also been awhile since a brand new slot was filled (lol) but at least I didn't have to pullcables and go through multiple power cycles which was VERY nice. I may be adding a few more drives soon (about to max out) so I'll pay closer attention with those. This latest one was an old Parity drive being swapped out so perhaps there was something about it - dunno' and not worried but will take notes next time. P.S. Had a 300Gig Maxtor fail as a Parity drive after about a week's worth of use. That seemed awful odd but I pulled it and put it on the shelf, replaced it with a Seagate. I finally got around to checking it's warranty date - 11/06 despite my only having used it a week and purchased it maybe two months ago. Ran their diag utility asnd sure enough - it's TOAST and being replaced under warranty. Need to test the other drive that unRAID reported as bad - long out of warranty and alsoa Maxtor, want to bet it's dead too? Really not liking Maxtor these days and Seagate is giving 5 year warranties...

I believe Tom talked about this ome on the AVS Forum thread. As you noted prices are pretty comparable on drives. I believe he stated that prices wouldn't change much if at all for SATA and that existing users would get the SATA code at no charge. Do note that SATA, at this time, does *not* allow for drive spindown. That makes a BIG power consumption difference! SATA cabling is neater and has better airflow but there's not going to be any added performance from going SATA it seems. At this time I see no reason to go SATA really although if it would allow me to go more than 12 drives I might try it

Somehow this makes me very cautious. If I ever had a usb card failure and I could not reach Lime Tech support, what would be my situation. If I've understood this right, I could connect the data drives to xp or linux systems and recover the data. But what about my $159 unRaid investment, gone for ever? I really like the unRAID concept since it has some very tempting features compared to other solutions, but I really don't know if I should build my on-coming file server system on this technology or do I regret it after couple of years or so? Look at it from Tom's POV. He's trying to sell this concept and the work he put into modifying the software and creating the management utilities. If he doesn't have some sort of copy protection then anyone who purchases this can simply duplicate it and his sales will tank. To date Tom has been VERY good about replacing USB FOBs that have failed and if it came to it he could probably even accomodate you using your own media since he generates an ID based off of the internal ID numbers on the USB FOB. There's discussion of this on the AVS Forum actually. Frankly, it's the only way Tom can protect the investment he's put into this product....

Okay, I just had the opportunity to swap out 3 disks for larger ones. My Parity and two data drives were both swapped out for larger ones. Two 400Gig drives were added and one 300Gig drive was added. Each step required me to pull an old drive, put in new drive, build parity or build the drive. Instructions say to do this by stopping, swapping, and restarting. The reality is though that upon starting the new drive you WILL get a failure. The system will attempt to write 65 times to the new drive and it WILL error out 65 times and disable the drive. The first time this occured I thought a cable was loose. That was a few days ago. Then last night I began adding in these new drives and moving my old parity into data use and every single time I fired up the array with a new drive in it, checked the little button, and started the expansion process the drive would FAIL. I would then have to stop the array, unplug the drive, start the array with a drive missing, stop the array, plug the drive back in, start the array - now it starts fine. I really did think it was a bad connection the first time, even the second maybe, but after doing this a total of 4 times with three of them pretty much back to back with me being VERY careful I think it's safe to say there's a bug. One that can be worked aorund for sure and doesn't cause problems but it is a real PITA when you have o wait for 7+ drives to mount before stopping the array a few times! Anyone else spotted this?

Ah Ha!!!! One of the directories I've been unable to delete is the cause of the Fsck? errors in the log! When I attempt to delete it from Windows it reports that the directory isn't empty but nopthing I try in Windows displays anything. I've not tried navigating to it in Linux. I strongly suspect that at some point a filename with High ASCII was in the directory but I'm not positive. I've had filenames with Kanji and other languages trip me up, I think I've gotten rid of them all though. Below is what I've been spotting in the log and when I access this directory or attempt to delete it the log goes a bit nutz Mar 25 02:29:48 BEAST kernel: md(9,5):vs-5150: search_by_key: invalid format found in block 40594524. Fsck? Mar 25 02:29:48 BEAST kernel: md(9,5):vs-13070: reiserfs_read_inode2: i/o failure occurred trying to find stat data of [34613 34833 0x0 SD] Mar 25 02:29:48 BEAST kernel: is_tree_node: node level 1709 does not match to the expected one 1 Mar 25 02:29:48 BEAST kernel: md(9,5):vs-5150: search_by_key: invalid format found in block 40595373. Fsck? Mar 25 02:29:48 BEAST kernel: md(9,5):vs-13070: reiserfs_read_inode2: i/o failure occurred trying to find stat data of [34613 34834 0x0 SD] Umm, how best to fix this? Kill the directory in Linux or try to fixup the disk? This is my MP3 disk so a "bad thing" would be VERY bad indeed

I understand, I honestly didn't expect the newest software to solve things as you'd stated that wasn't the focus. So long as I don't multitask the server it seems to work better. I just tried ripping across the network again and was seeing over 2meg per second and that usually ramps up as I read towards the edge of the disk. Unfortunatly at 6% the software froze, below is some of what I see in the logs. I went back to a local rip and it's flying - at 46% I'm seeing nearly 11meg per second Mar 24 19:13:05 BEAST smbd[1079]: [2006/03/24 19:13:05, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(798) Mar 24 19:13:05 BEAST smbd[1079]: 192.168.1.250 (192.168.1.250) couldn't find service disk Not sure if that helps at all. The software itself didn't crash and I was able to recover and start again local <shrug> Wonder if it doesn't like UNC naming? TyTools doesn't I don't think and neither does PSP Video9 as I recall. The software I'm using right now is DVD Shrink FWIW.

Well, I have one VERY fast machine with GigE on the same switch as my unRAID. My first attempt to rip with that machine took 6.5 HOURS for a single DVD that only compressed the extras. Another machine that started ripping just after the first also took 6 hours but is a MUCH slower CPU. Displayed bitrate for one was about 900K and the other maybe 1500K. If I rip local with either machine or even a 3rd still slower machine I see bitrates double and triple what I'd seen before and can complete a DVD in 11-25mins. That's ISO or folder format - I'm now doing just folders BTW but keeping extras, menus, etc. I will admit that since that first attempt I've not tried to rip across the network since it was such a disaster and that perhaps multiple machines working was the problem but 6 hours compared to say 30mins is a pretty drastic difference! CPUs weren't maxxed and network traffic was low while that was going on, I don't think it was an issue with my various machines. Copying the resulting multi-gig files to the server from local now takes maybe 6-7mins unless I try to do it with multiple machines, at that point performance goes WAY down but nowhere near the hours long mark. <shrug> Hope that provides some insight anyway! P.S. I said 2-3times performance ripping locally. I just noticed that the bitrate for my second fastest machine is reporting nearly 8 meg a second so umm maybe a "little" more than 3 times Both mytwo fastest machines have GigE onboard, one on th emotherboard (Nvidia) and another a Hawk add-on card. switch is an SMC unit - a CG58

As far as I know, the serial number match occurs in the "Management Utility" that is not part of the GPL. it will not run to let you start the unRaid array if the serial numbers don't match. Linux will be up and running though (as long as you can boot from the USB drive), and you should be able to telnet in to see the source, even if you cannot start the unRaid array. As I said earlier, source code on the flash drive is not needed to comply (but it is nice). I.e. I have a router that is Linux based. It uses GPL derived code. It has no telnet window or any way to look at anything on its file system. The manufacturer has a small notice on their web-site stating it uses GPL code and that people can write to get a copy. The router manufacturer can add links to the web-page, etc (and they do) to download the source, but their must be a way to request the source other than download (since not everybody has the ability to download files) They did not include source code when I purchased the product, but it is available on request. In the same way, not everybody will be able to see the uncompressed filesystem in a unRaid server (unless they own one) and therefore, as long as Tom responds to a request for a copy of the files via US mail or e-mail, and lets folks know on his web-site how to make that request, I think everything is cool with the GPL. Looking at the source files themselves, seems Tom built his unRaid driver based on GPL code from the "md" driver (md=multi-device, aka software-raid) . Sounds good and makes sense - also sounds like you may have a WRT54 based router, as I do I am curious about your last sentence though, from the sounds of it Tom based his code off of the current Software RAID and has released that source - yes? If so that's a pretty big deal IMO. His keeping his management utility closed source means that using the driver would be difficult at best and a reasonable move on his part IMO. That he has released the driver, if I'm reading this right, is a pretty big step and one that most folks would have tried to resist IMO. Props to Tom if I've understood you correctly! Appreciate you having dived into this as deeply as you have. While I have some understasnding of Linux and an understanding of some of the issues here (I think) I couldn't have analyzed the code nearly as well as you have if at all. Hopefully this can put to bed some of the concerns that I and others have expressed. If I've understood you correctly I believe this code complies and I'm satisfied for whatever that's worth. Now, if we can just eek some more performance out of the driver for multiple writes etc.! Source is going to be available soon fot those who have the skills to help it seems...

I'm not sure I understand this statement - I hadn't noticed it before. If Tom used GPL code in this work, which he certainly did to support his code, but didn't modify it or releases his mods than as I understand it he's in the clear so long as his code isn't a derivative work, yes? He isn't under any obligation to release his code, no more so than say NVIDIA, if he follows the rules. Code CAN be written to run ON Linux such that Linux must at least be installed for the code to run and still not be considered a derivative. Do you feelthat isn't the case? I don't understand the first part of your statement here as it appears to clash with my understanding.....

A okay, so it was there before? I feel better then actually I had only monitored the logs for a short while before updating to the new code so I was under the impresion that this was new since I hadn't seen it before. naturally since my previous post the fsck? thing hasn't shown back up. Will post when I spot it but the other stuff seems pretty benign since my system ran just fine before... I've yet to see one of the dreaded DMA errors BTW but I had pretty reliable performance before too. I'm presently ripping and moving alot of code to the array so at least one disk is seeing a good bit of activity. Multiple machines writing at once or trying to ripacross the network is a pretty bad idea -the array cannot hande it. Playback from it appears to be just fine though!

As one of the "beta" testers I can state that the source code for the unRaid module IS in a "src" directory on the unRaid server once it is running. It includes a "Makefile" so someone with a kernel compile environment could compile it. That same directory also has a "COPYING.txt" file with the text of the GPL. The "flash" drive itself has the entire filesystem image for the root filesystem compressed for the GRUB loader to use and uncompress, so you cannot see the GPL related files until the unRaid OS has booted and you log in to the unRaid server via telnet. To me, as an non-expert in GPL protocol, this complies as long as he updates his web-site to include the GPL notice and offer via e-mail to ship a copy of the source at a reasonable cost (his duplicating expense) around the same time he releases the new release to his existing customers. Now, I do not have a compile environment to try to make the unRaid module, so I can't try to "make" it, but the source and GPL files are there. :) Joe L. Ah, okay, I stand corrected! I hadn't thought to look inside the decompressed file system. Hrm, that's a bit tricky isn't it since in order to get that far you must have booted from the code in question and it may not boot without the flash serialmatching? I've not ever tried moving the code to another flash soI'm nto sure. It's possible toget inside a BZimage file with some HEX editing too but again not exactly straightforward. If it can be offered otherwise for reasonable cost then yeah, that complies so long as everyone is satisfied that GPL'd code that was used\modified is offered up. Tom is under no obligation to reveal code he's written that stands alone or that isn't staticlly linked - fuzzy on the last part.

Tailing the syslog with tail -f /var/log/syslog I see some errors pop up occasionally. Overallnothing too alarming except something about an inode being hosed with a fsck? commetn afterwards. I'm no Linux Wiz but it looks like there might be some corruption and that the OS wants a file check? This brings up a question, if something gets a little borked with Reiser is there a way to correct it within unRAID? Here's what I'm seeing presently, I've not got the fsck stuff displayed at the moment.. Mar 24 12:22:20 BEAST smbd[2133]: sys_path_to_bdev() failed for path [.]! Mar 24 12:22:20 BEAST smbd[2133]: [2006/03/24 12:22:20, 0] lib/sysquotas.c:sys_get_quota(386) Mar 24 12:22:20 BEAST smbd[2133]: sys_path_to_bdev() failed for path [.]! I see the failed comments pretty often, sometimes all I have to do is refresh the WEB interface to make it appear. System appears to be running smothly though.

Okay, so I'm NOT crazy! I was just noticing that my file times were off again and about go nutz (lol). Very glad to see this is being worked and that I didn't have to expend brain cells pondering it much. Thanks for working on a fix, it really is vexing to write to a file system and have the time be so far off when you look at it later.

Unfortunately it is not about you but about infringement on the rights of the original authors of the linux kernel (one of which I am). It is totally unacceptable for anyone to distribute object code to GPL licensed software (or derivative works thereof) for apparently multiple years without full license compliance. This includes shipping a copy of the license text, and the full corresponding source code (or a written offer thereof) with each and every copy of the object code. I would point out that Tom's product hasn't been around for long at all. His first version was shipped less than seven months ago to the best of my recollection. Shortly afterwards the subject of GPL compliance came up and he said that he would comply. His current (and first) beta release for his next revision does include information on licensing although I don't think he has yet made any modified sources available - he has stated he intends to. Tom has a few "itches" that apparently current Linux code doesn't scratch - primarily SATA spindown. If he manages to fix that I would expect it to get released back to the community as the functionality would liklely reside in GPL'd code and would certainly be of benefit. Please don't write him off as a freeloader just yet as I do not have the impression that he's acting as such. There are for more aggregious developers out there, SVEASOFT likely to be a good place to start.

Am running it right now guys So far the interface seems snappier and I've successfully, after some cabling issues, upgraded a drive with it. I'm updating parity now, see some messages in the log, but overall it looks good right now. Need to run awhile to be sure - Tom's added care to make sure the data is "safe" is most appreciated since umm backing up this much data might be pretty hard. It's mostly stuff I could lose and while I'd cry, alot, about some of the MP3, I do have that stuff mostly backed up anyway (lol). Once Parity is complete I'll try shuffling some data aorund - perhaps tomorrow evening as it's late now. The upgrade was pretty simple BTW and all I had to do was follow Tom's instructions!

First of all - no apologies necessary. Yes, I was upset, no I didn't feel some burning hatred or desire to hunt you down The comment to the effect that licenses didn't concern you and that you just wanted a good product is likely what hit strongest - that's like me hitting up Best Buy and walking out arms loaded with DVD Not likely to work out in the long run The comments from others WRT to GPL compliance while perhaps a bit stern do have some basis. Try to see it from their point of view though - Tom said he would work on it and then was gone for whatever reason, now he's back, they wanted to know what was up. Yes, Tom said he was aware of the issue. You'll note that a mailing list was mentioned.... As it happens I've had the occasion to read some of the posts to that list in the past while researching a seperate product so I think I've gained a little insight. You have to understand - most companies when "caught" start off with denial, then stalling, then stonewalling, and then sometimes they comply but in ways that are just crazy - say charging $500 a copy for each CD of their source and expecting 3 months lead time to create it. Then the CD doesn't compile to anything recognizable... The latest nightmare that I can recall was Sony with that silly DRM\RootKit stuff - did you know their "media player" it installed contained GPL code? Think the mods to it will EVER get released? You get the idea - patience is something those folks aren't exactly very long on anymore! Microsoft charges money for it's OS, the GPL folks simply charge that if you use their code and improve it you must release those changes for all - that's their currency. Many companies seem to feel that since it's "free" and there's no single entity that it's okay to just take it, if that's allowed to continue then there's no incentive to "share" and the house of cards tumbles down. IBM is a decent example of a company that "gets it" - they have contributed a great deal of IP to the Open Source stuff, more power to them. Hopefully Tom's latest release will make folks happier, honestly I expect there will still be some grumbling and perhaps some give or take until there's a happy medium. In the end I think Tom will be able to continue to make money on this and I hope that he will be successful. So long as he follows the rules of the road he'll be golden. You'll note that I was probably one of the first to bring this up awhile back, you may also note that I said something along the lines of "hope the zealots don't spot this". Having a feeding frenzy is exactly what I hoped wouldn't occur, hopefully that isn't what will occur and things can move forward. You would be shocked at the numbers of products today that use Linux - lots of NAS, routers, test equipment, the list is long. It's really not too much to ask that these folks get their requests for code payment and improvement met IMO. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tom manages to find\fix bugs in code he doesn't care about while he's working out bugs in his NAS - shouldn't everyone benefit from that? If he can get spindown working on SATA that would be awesome - and an example of an itch being scratched by him that helps all. <shrug> BTW - I'm not a code contributor\programmer, barely a Linux user, but I do follow this stuff\believe in it and I do contribute to the EFF every single year - usually in cash at DEFCON actually Those are the folks who you are most likely to find on your side fighting the DMCA and other crap legislation that comes around. Where that stuff is concerned you and I likely have a great deal of common ground. I could go on for hours about the way things have gone downhill but this is neither time nor place - suffice it to say it's only going to get worse before it gets better. I often wonder and sometimes wish that CSS had never been broken so that things could have come to a head sooner - the next round of DRM encumbered media may be what wakes people up - we'll see. Heh, I actually have a T-shirt with the deCSS code on it - not legal under today's laws apparently. Scary huh? Take care...

If you don't want to be seen as a zealot then you really should reread your post and completely rewrite it. Maybe this will help - substitute the word "GPL" in your post for "DMCA" or "DRM" and see if you'd you think the post would come across as that of a DRM/DMCA zealot. You may also want to consider that for many the main use of the unRaid software is to store DVDs that were ripped in violation of the DMCA by defeating the encryption. Kind of ironic isn't it? Are you and the OP going after those guys too and prepared to submit their names to Slashdot if they don't comply with the DMCA? Do you turn your friends or coworkers in to Sony and Universal that have ripped a DVD? Afterall the DMCA is the law and it is your civic duty. I know that many on the AVS forum have discussed the ripping of DVDs - have you threatened to alert law enforcement if they don't prove to you that they are in compliance with the DRM licensing restrictions and the DMCA? Maybe you could threaten to turn them into slashdot as was discussed on AVS. Oh yeah, that wouldn't work as those that care so much about the legalities of licensing terms of GPL totally disregard the validity of the licensing restrictions used by the MPAA and the RIA. It's funny how that those that enjoy raging against the machine end up being the machine as soon as they get the chance. To be clear, I am not arguing that the GPL should not be honored. However, you guys are coming across as hall monitor wannabes and it is somewhat embarrassing to have to endure. Funny, ripping DVDs came up at work today. DMCA says legal to make backup copies but not legal to break copy protections to do so. DMCA says not kosher to sell software who's primary purpose is to support piracy, DVD rippers no longer sold in brick and mortar stores and sales move offshore. So, legal to RIP or not? For me this is simple and I follow my conscience - I RIP and do not distribute. The spirit of the law, if you think the DMCA has spirit, is to make piracy more difficult. It allows for reverse engineering but makes it more onerous, it also contradicts itself more than once. It also has special protections in it for the design of boat hulls - this from a lawyer who studied it and gave a seminar about it that I attended. Cute huh? I've likely spent more time trying to understand the DMCA than the average Joe and certainly more time trying to understand the GPL than PGPfan! In short - I follow my conscience on this matter just as I do when I violate speed limits. I speed but I tend to not do 120mph in a school zone. In this case that means that I'm not crawling all over Tom but you had better believe I'll jump on someone who says they don't care cuz they get good stuff out of it - just like I'd jump on a fool who advocated 120mph in a school zone as safe DRM? Simple, I don't purchase prodcuts that support it. Okay, I've bought DVDs, about 500 of them in fact, I also have no qualms about slicing and dicing the DRM in order to make my own backup copies. Oddly I'm not storing any of those on my storage array right now (lol) but will begin sometime this evening I think if I can get an issue with my array solved. No iTunes here, no NAPSTER, and most likely I won't be using BluRay etc. anytime soon either. We all make choices. Tom decided to base his system on software that was open source and it came with caveats - he is responding to those caveats. Buffalo, Linksys, TIVO, and a long list of others have done the same. The primary aim of a DVD license is to not have the DVD ripped and distributed, I'm happy to comply with that. If the manufacturer chooses to try and limit reasonable rights, say by only allowing it to play every Thursday or prevent me from making a backup copy, then I choose to violate that license. Call the lawyers if you please but it comes down to being reasonable, the GPL is plenty reasonable. I'm *not* screaming for Tom's head as I think he's trying to be reasonable too but it would be foolish to ignore the issue. It's one thing for an individual to violate a license and rip a DVD for personal use, it's quite another for someone to do so and distribute it or worse sell it. If that makes me a zealot fine, I guess I'll wear the Z proudly

Good catch, I'd missed that in the release notes. I've got the new code and will be testing it this evening. I noticed two text files in the release so far although at this point I don't recall one of them named GPL or anything - I'll look again tonight. If Tom has managed to do this terrific and a faster turnaround than most other folks who have had this issue. Personally I'm inclined not to sweat the first release if he's made good with the second, it'll be interesting to see if his changes are found to be of use by any of the maintainers...