On Friday 11 November 2005 21:19, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > The question is, are you going to
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> > > Microsystems?
>
> To which m
Hi,
I tried to download and run Live CD but without
success. I think that collaboration of enterprise forces of
Solaris-security,stable,expandable and usability of Debian platform is
great idea. I'm a sys admin in Institute of Computer and Comm. Systems - Bulg.
Academy of Science. Our effort
On Thursday 03 November 2005 22:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> > thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
> > you're asking for. You're
On Thursday 03 November 2005 18:45, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> > > GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or throug
On Thursday 03 November 2005 21:25, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > > If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly
> > > suggest to take the concerns of Debian developer
Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 12:45 -0800, Erast Benson escreveu:
> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
I say let's rejec
(Oh, and please don't see this as any sort of bias against non-Linux
kernels or non-glibc systems - I spent quite some time working on a port
of Debian to the NetBSD kernel, using the native C library)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> > Microsystems?
To which my answer was "yes". I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse
you in
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the time of writing, I assumed "GNU/Solaris" implied they'd use the
GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it).
Having downloaded their preview ISO:
The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of
GPL
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the time of writing, I assumed "GNU/Solaris" implied they'd use the
> GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it).
Having downloaded their preview ISO:
The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of
GPLed material. When I que
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:40:34AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
>
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:47:22AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
>
> And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and
> would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg?
Yes.
At th
Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>>>The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>>>That's exactly the *point*.
>
>
>>Explain please.
>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing.
>
> Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux
Perhaps he meant tha
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:17:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here.
> > It's not very productive.)
You can start CC'ing the conversation to -legal. Moving threads, in
my experience, generally doesn't work; besides, -devel can hand
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is
> highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor
> identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free.
This is, of course, a definition of "free" that's specific to som
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm:
>> Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
>>> anonymous changes.
>> Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
>> Please fetch a fresh copy f
* Henning Makholm:
> Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
>> anonymous changes.
>
> Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
> Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source.
What is a trusted source?
On Friday 04 November 2005 14.33, John Hasler wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > community.
>
> That's not true either. Any distributed changes must be made available
> to those to whom the changes were distributed. In pract
On Friday 04 November 2005 19.00, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Complete bullshit. Get a life.
Ahhh, yet another instance of asuffield.
-- vbi
--
featured product: GNU Privacy Guard - http://gnupg.org
pgpToLVOlXVEk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 03 November 2005 20.51, Erast Benson wrote:
> HW vendors will *never* open their IP in
> drivers.
Ok, this becomes a bit OT here, but let me just remark that Linux today
supports a *lot* of hardware, and that quite a few drivers (some RAID
controllers, Intel SATA stuff, most of the S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
>> they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
> anonymous changes.
Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source.
--
Henning Makholm "Gå ud i solen eller regne
* Frank Küster:
>> Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.
>
> I cannot find it there. Moreover, if it was in there, the GPL would
> fail the Dissident test and the Dessert Island test.
The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
anonymous changes.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Wouter Verhelst:
> > >
> > > >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix
>> CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible
>> licenses and distribute the resulting executable.
> Sorry, I
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
> >> > That's
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >
> > As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment
> > for
> > the Sodomotron 2000.
> >
>
> ...which could certainly have been written:
>
>
> As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
>
>
> I actual
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:49:35PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the
> meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it
> apply at all.
Complete bullshit. Get a life.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffie
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>> > That's exactly the *point*.
>> Lets assume yo
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst:
> >
> > >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> > >> contributed back to the community.
> > >
> > > No, that's not true.
>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing.
>
> Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux
> development model d
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard
> non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution.
Why don't you use glibc then? Your problem would be solved.
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD uses glibc according to their web
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Wouter Verhelst:
>>
>> >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
>> >> contributed back to the community.
>> >
>> > No, that's not true.
>> >
>> > Any *di
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> community.
That's not true either. Any distributed changes must be made available to
those to whom the changes were distributed. In practice changes usually
become available to the community but that i
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
>
> >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> >> contributed back to the community.
> >
> > No, that's not true.
> >
> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
This is incomprehens
* Wouter Verhelst:
>> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
>> contributed back to the community.
>
> No, that's not true.
>
> Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> community.
Huh? Why do you think so?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Frank Küster writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>>
>>> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> This is unsupportable hyperbole
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>
>> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>
> This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
> > That's exactly the *point*.
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c mus
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
;-)
This spares me an upload today...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
>
> As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment for
> the Sodomotron 2000.
>
...which could certainly have been written:
As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
I actually don't really see a reason for being so aggressive verbally
with someo
Michael Banck wrote:
> Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and
would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
> without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
> operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
> that those distributors can take advant
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
>> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
>> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
>
> What is this
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be
> comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux. Not disappointing
> at all.
Well some points were factual, some were sun marketng, but it all did
seem to be tinged with a vaguely
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will refer back to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I
> wrote that we will have to disagree on the meaning of that phrase.
> You say that it includes system header files; I think a reasonable
> interpretation is that it means interface definition files for t
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
>> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
>> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
>> making m
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
What is this "almost nobody"?
Debian most certain
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications. For applications -- w
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
>> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
>> of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
>> in
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
> of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
> in no way part of the preferred form f
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Explain please.
>
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.
No. Any change to foo.c can be kept entirely private if you wish. The
GPL only requires that *if* you choose to distribute yo
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>> >
>> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> Th
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
> >
> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>
> This is unsupportable hyperbole. Era
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Erast Benson said
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > > it
> > > > stabilizes?
> >
> > > Yes
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
>> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
>> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...
> I think that Sun did j
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:04:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
> > they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
> > them to cooperate with yo
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:18 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > No. That is not sufficient. This would simply be a subterfuge. If
> > you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still
> > distributing the libraries al
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
> for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports
> possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
> be enough t
Russ Allbery writes:
> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...
I think that Sun did just that, and the CDDL is doing exactly what the
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>
> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt,
wrong, misleading, or have any number of other fla
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard
> non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution.
I am quite content with binaries built from my GPL-licensed software being
illegal for a port using a CDDL-licensed libc to redistrib
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:53:53AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> > > to have Debian GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of
OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of
your problems are gone.
Effectively, might happen that once SUN released all the
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.
This is completely and fundamentally wrong.
> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
This is incomprehensible gibb
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
> > they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
> > wares.
>
> Please w
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>> That's exactly the *point*.
> Explain please.
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed proje
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL licens
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:51:31AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> The great thing about CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which
> are licensed under CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change
> made by anybody (including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed
> back to
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> > > GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.
>
> Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of
> OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of
> your problems are gone.
Effective
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.
In fact, Debian and GPL software in general work just fine on non-GPL
compatible platforms. I use and distribute (even c
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:30PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> > > should care about your problems. Yo
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> > sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:17 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good ...
Please look up the meaning of acronyms if you intend on using them. I
do not think it means what you thi
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
> > they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
> > wares.
>
> Please w
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
>
> Major shift of Linux users to OpenSo
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
(including propriatery distributors) *must* b
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
> they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
> wares.
Please wake up. :-)
This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon doll
Erast Benson wrote:
Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.
Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of
OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of
your problems are gone.
I hope I don't sound too harsh on you, but I'd find it naive to expect
the
Erast Benson wrote:
The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
That's exactly the *point*.
Explain please.
Read this book: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/ ,
then read this book: http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm ,
then read the GPL FAQs, and the
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:26:51PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> > thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
> > you're asking for. Y
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
Not every dpkg copyright holder is
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
> > over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
> > personally, I'd be sur
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Erast Benson writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> >> > it
> >> > >
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
>
> You seem to be saying that if a bunch of peopl
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free
> >> software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL wou
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
>> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
>> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
>> have t
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> > strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> > software. But to avoid duplication of work, it w
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> > should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
> > somehow by not conforming to your n
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
> >> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
> >> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time n
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on
> non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved.
Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.
--
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
> you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
> of some of its co
Erast Benson writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
>> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
>> > it
>> > > stabilizes?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Wasn't this already discussed regar
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> > make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
> > sure it is quite easy possible by mak
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
