On Aug 18, 2006, at 12:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
And BTW: I am sure, Simon did exactly have this in mind when he did
say that
the biggest problem for a DTrace port to Linux would be the
different threading
model and not the different licenses.
I felt a direct argument with Danese would h
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Don Armstrong, he provided you with a list of items to be
> answered in regard to your code, but they were never answered. Until you
> answer his questions, he will not reply. I don't know what transpired with
> Don Armstrong and you, but fr
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 03:38 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > While he is the only person from Debian who did not send obviously wrong
> > claims about the GPL (as I already noted, the typical habbit of Debian
> > people was to send quotes from GPL §2 and t
On Friday 18 August 2006 03:38 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> While he is the only person from Debian who did not send obviously wrong
> claims about the GPL (as I already noted, the typical habbit of Debian
> people was to send quotes from GPL §2 and to claim that they were talking
> about GPL §3 or
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember a long (several hours) discussion with Andy Tucker in September
> 2004.
> The results at that time have been:
>
> - It must not be the BSDl as the Solaris developers don't like this.
>
> - It cannot be the GPL because this would prev
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 03:45 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > After viewing the video from Debconf6, I can say the following:
>
> I did watch this video a couple days ago. Ironically, Don Armstrong (I only
> knew him as Don in the video) was at the Debi
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 03:45 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> After viewing the video from Debconf6, I can say the following:
I did watch this video a couple days ago. Ironically, Don Armstrong (I only
knew him as Don in the video) was at the Debian booth today at LinuxWorld.
Don actually seems
Hi Joerg,
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The people around the GPL (let me call them this way) don't like
the CDDL
What people? RMS has said " is a free software license":
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1825&tstart=0
The CDDL is listed as a free software
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > After viewing the video from Debconf6, I can say the following:
> >
> > While Simon was very informative and correct, Danese Cooper did
> > unfortunately
> > claim that Sun developers did like to make the C
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Rich Teer wrote:
What's the URL for that video?
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
Thanks,
Derek E. Lewis
http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dle
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> After viewing the video from Debconf6, I can say the following:
>
> While Simon was very informative and correct, Danese Cooper did unfortunately
> claim that Sun developers did like to make the CDDL incompatible to the GPL
> by
> intention. If you
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 11:54 am, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Exactly. I propose to stop any GPL vs. CDDL discussions on m-l all
> > over... it doesn't do any good to us. Instead we should go to sites like
> > slashdot.org, etc with good written articles and
[ ... ]
The factual information presented in the two posts (partially quoted
above) is untrue.
First of all, Philips Webcam driver development continues to date. The
latest version(s) of the Linux pwc drivers (supporting kernels 2.4.x
and 2.6.x) can be downloaded from:
http://www.saillard.org/l
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 11:54 am, Erast Benson wrote:
> Exactly. I propose to stop any GPL vs. CDDL discussions on m-l all
> over... it doesn't do any good to us. Instead we should go to sites like
> slashdot.org, etc with good written articles and detailed howto's on why
> CDDL is actually bette
> BUT it is Suns work to clear all questions about the
> CDDL. They have written
> it. They know all things about. They have the lawyers
> who can clear all
> questions.
Why do they need to. You can read what it says. GPLv2 has been around well over
a decade and people still have trouble understa
Me too, and I still believe that the GPL was the right way to go
in the early 1990s. But for wow ,the world did change and the GPL is
neither the best solution anymore nor do I like to have endless discussions
with the GPL extremists.
I'm sure the GPL community feels that their license is
Gueven Bay wrote On 08/16/06 00:18,:
It is Suns responsibility to build a community around their product
and project. They have the best people regarding (Open)Solaris.
Sun may have more OpenSolaris engineers than anyone out there, and many
of those guys are clearly world class developers. N
UNIX admin wrote On 08/15/06 22:48,:
You know what: In my region there will be in some
weeks another gathering of the free sw community with
presentations and a small booth and so on.
Here you can see:
http://www.come2linux.org/psp/veranstaltung.html
There will be not ONE talk about OpenSolar
On 8/15/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The people think:
> > " Hmm, The GPL was written long ago. All this free SW is there and will
> > be free forever.
>
> Will it be ?
>
> If you're getting into license fasicm, you end up with proje
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:21 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Btw, yes, I have contributed GPL code.
> > Sometimes, having that kind of control is a very nice thing :)
>
> Me too, and I still believe that the GPL was the right way to go
> in the early 1990s. But for wow ,the world did change and t
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:43 am, Gueven Bay wrote:
> And OpenSolaris will not get "uptake" until you - the OpenSolaris community
> - made it _crystal clear_ to _normal_ people - not to lawyers in companies
> - that the CDDL is not a license with which SUN wants to $profit$ .
We will do this, a
> Then why don't YOU make a difference? Obviously you
> know about OpenSolaris, or else you wouldn't be here
> participating in this discussion. So schedule a
> presentation -- talk to people about OpenSolaris!
Because we speak about the CDDL here.
This was the theme of the original post. The unce
> You know what: In my region there will be in some
> weeks another gathering of the free sw community with
> presentations and a small booth and so on.
> Here you can see:
> http://www.come2linux.org/psp/veranstaltung.html
>
> There will be not ONE talk about OpenSolaris !
Then why don't YOU ma
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The people think:
> > " Hmm, The GPL was written long ago. All this free SW is there and will
> > be free forever.
>
> Will it be ?
>
> If you're getting into license fasicm, you end up with projects like this:
>
> http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/
And
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Gueven Bay wrote:
And OpenSolaris will not get "uptake" until you - the OpenSolaris community -
made it _crystal clear_ to _normal_ people - not to lawyers in companies - that the CDDL
is not a license with which SUN wants to $profit$ .
The free software community doesn'
Gueven Bay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And that tell us what, Mr. Schilling ?
>
> You know what: In my region there will be in some weeks another gathering of
> the free sw community with presentations and a small booth and so on.
> Here you can see: http://www.come2linux.org/psp/veranstaltung.
And that tell us what, Mr. Schilling ?
You know what: In my region there will be in some weeks another gathering of
the free sw community with presentations and a small booth and so on.
Here you can see: http://www.come2linux.org/psp/veranstaltung.html
There will be not ONE talk about OpenSolar
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The people around the GPL (let me call them this way) don't like the CDDL
> because the CDDL is a strong license and because you cannot put a GPL header
> on front of the CDDL header as it is done frequently with GPLd software.
Sorry for the confusion.
Gueven Bay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And OpenSolaris will not get "uptake" until you - the OpenSolaris community -
> made it _crystal clear_ to _normal_ people - not to lawyers in companies -
> that the CDDL is not a license with which SUN wants to $profit$ .
>
> The free software communi
And OpenSolaris will not get "uptake" until you - the OpenSolaris community -
made it _crystal clear_ to _normal_ people - not to lawyers in companies -
that the CDDL is not a license with which SUN wants to $profit$ .
The free software community doesn't like the CDDL and with it OpenSolaris.
30 matches
Mail list logo
