On 10/2/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hows that for a really honest, accurate and worthless answer ?
Very well crafted :-)
Paul
--
Paul Durrant
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pdurrant
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-di
> At the risk of starting another flame war, I have a question concerning
> CDDL...
>
> If I contribute a driver to OpenSolaris for a device which is
> protected by certain patents then do I compromise those patents in any
> way? Note I'm not talking about software patents here, just patents on
>
Hi Paul,
Linda Bernal forwarded me this question last week, and I am trying to
find an answer. It just may take me a few days.
Thanks.
Bonnie
Paul Durrant wrote On 10/02/06 09:14,:
> At the risk of starting another flame war, I have a question concerning
> CDDL...
>
> If I contribute a drive
At the risk of starting another flame war, I have a question concerning CDDL...
If I contribute a driver to OpenSolaris for a device which is
protected by certain patents then do I compromise those patents in any
way? Note I'm not talking about software patents here, just patents on
the hardware
On Saturday 12 August 2006 03:33 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Now, it seems that Debian likes to put cdrtools into non-free or to remove
> it completely and to replace it by "dvdrecord".
This is being looked into.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 17:16 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:59 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project.
> >
> > I have only one question. Is CDDL licensed code going into non
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 17:16 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:59 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> > CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project.
>
> I have only one question. Is CDDL licensed code going into non-free?
The answer is may be, if we will do nothing
If you are coming in, can you explain this to me? I am available at 5?
Jim
On Aug 9, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:59 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project.
I have only one question. Is CDDL licensed cod
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:59 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project.
I have only one question. Is CDDL licensed code going into non-free?
So far my understanding is that it is possibly.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineer
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CDDL vs. GPL issue is no longer a concern for Nexenta project. The main
> licensing conflict has been resolved during the first GPLv3 draft
> discussion. Both sides SUN and FSF agreed that the way Nexenta and
> Solaris(!) links GPL software with CDDL is to
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 01:47 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > Nils Nieuwejaar wrote On 08/08/06 21:44,:
> > > Look, you are _never_ going to get complete acceptance.
>
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:23 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> > I'm not sure we'll ever get "complete acceptance" as well, and I'm not
Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Might want to check this out:
> http://blogs.sfbay.sun.com/roller/page/OpenSourceNews/20060808#CDDL_recommended_by_OSI
It would be needed to make this readable from outside Sun.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just like software that works. Free is really cool too.
> The license is just a document written by lawyers, not developers.
Is some camps spread FUD on the CDDL, you may encounter the problems
we curently see. As you see with the success for Linux,
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
> > CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
> > there to make an open source license a good open source license ?
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
>> >on
>> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
>> >accept it as an open source free license.
>>
>> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
> >on
> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
> >accept it as an open source free license.
>
> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9
> Nils Nieuwejaar wrote On 08/08/06 21:44,:
> > Look, you are _never_ going to get complete acceptance.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 07:23 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> I'm not sure we'll ever get "complete acceptance" as well, and I'm not
> sure that's realistic. But I understand Alan's point
I don't
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote On 08/08/06 21:44,:
On Mon 08/07/06 at 17:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
there to make an open
Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> > > talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> > > recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
...
> Not off-hand, although I'm sure he's probably blogged about any
G. It is! I didn't realize that. Sorry..
Simon, is there a reason why this is internal-only?
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Might want to check this out:
http://blogs.sfbay.sun.com/roller/page/OpenSourceNews/20060808#CDDL_recommended_by_OSI
Calum Benson wrote:
internal link ?
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 18:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> > talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> > recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
>
> Do you
> Might want to check this out:
> http://blogs.sfbay.sun.com/roller/page/OpenSourceNews/20060808#CDDL_recommended_by_OSI
>
> Calum Benson wrote:
internal link ?
its a big 404 out here
--
Dennis Clarke
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
openso
Might want to check this out:
http://blogs.sfbay.sun.com/roller/page/OpenSourceNews/20060808#CDDL_recommended_by_OSI
Calum Benson wrote:
On 7 Aug 2006, at 13:46, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as I (partially together with Erast) remain the only person who
tries to respond to these claims,
Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
Do you know about what he was talking with Debian people and what
results he co
> On Mon 08/07/06 at 17:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
>> > CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
>> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
>> > there to make an open source license a good open
On Mon 08/07/06 at 17:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
> > CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
> > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
> > there to make an open source license a good open source
On 7 Aug 2006, at 13:46, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as I (partially together with Erast) remain the only person
who
tries to respond to these claims, Debian will be really successful
with this
kind of CDDL treatement.
Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > Sure, or the folks that would bless it. If Debian is a problem, to work out
> > with the Debian folks why CDDL doesn't mix with GPL.
>
> Debian can't change that. CDDL doesn't mix with GPL because the GPL
> is written that way
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Sure, or the folks that would bless it. If Debian is a problem, to work out
with the Debian folks why CDDL doesn't mix with GPL.
Debian can't change that. CDDL doesn't mix with GPL because the GPL
is written that way. If Debian changed that, they'd be creating a new
Debia
On Monday 07 August 2006 03:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9 "preferred"
> licenses.
Right, but the OSI doesn't actually write open source software.
> I'm sorry; I don't follow. GPL is not an entity which allows are
> accepts; do you mean
On Monday 07 August 2006 03:47 pm, Christof Pintaske wrote:
> CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
> there to make an open source license a good open source license ?
Complete acceptance from the open source communiti
I think that the CDDL vs other licensing thread should end here and
now; we're rehashing last year's discussion yet again.
If people feel that items are missing in the licensing FAQ, then
that should be addressed.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss maili
>If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on
>it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
>accept it as an open source free license.
Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9 "preferred" licenses.
>the execution th
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been no substantiated
criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including CDDL'ed code.
If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on
it's
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been no substantiated
> criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including CDDL'ed code.
If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on
it's own, and get a sta
>I agree, it would be extremely bad, but OTOH, if we're in a situation where we
>can't work with open source development, due to licensing, that is pretty bad
>in itself.
I think that lending credence to the handful of "CDDL is bad" distractors
is bad in and of itself. We should not do that.
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
> >
> >Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to
> > be changed, IMO.
>
> The only thing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
> >
> >Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
> >changed, IMO.
>
> The only thing that will satisfy Debian seems
>On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
>
>Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
>changed, IMO.
The only thing that will satisfy Debian seems like is the GPL;
we can't do that.
Chan
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
changed, IMO.
This needs to be an open and free project, one that is accepted by the rest of
the open sou
On Monday 07 August 2006 12:04 pm, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > I'd like to know what the problem is with CDDL, it is OSI approved.
>
>
> But it's not the GPL...
>
And that's a good thing, in some ways.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> I'd like to know what the problem is with CDDL, it is OSI approved.
But it's not the GPL...
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, my voice will be there as well now.
Good to hear.
> Not sure how much good it will do, but I want to understand the problem
> first.
> I certainly have my share of incidents with folks like Parens, but I don't
> think Bruce is involved with Debia
On Monday 07 August 2006 05:46 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as I (partially together with Erast) remain the only person who
> tries to respond to these claims, Debian will be really successful with
> this kind of CDDL treatement.
Well, my voice will be there as well now.
Not sure how much
"Eric Enright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally I avoid derailed threads such as this, but Shawn has a good
> point. If Debian is rejecting the CDDL, then I think this is
> something that should be made aware to the community. I follow
> several high traffic osol lists, and this is the firs
45 matches
Mail list logo
