Criveti Mihai wrote:
Also, your FAQ:
http://developer.opensound.com/opensource_oss/licensing.html
is very unclear in terms of licensing (CDDL 1.0 for operating systems that have their full source code available under the CDDL or BSD licenses.).
That certainly does not include Solaris nor OpenS
It may be too late now, but I was kind of hoping you'd reconsider an MIT or BSD
license. The way I see it, integrating OSS into the BSD projects (be it
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD of even MirOS) would have been a great
chance at recruiting good developers. And none of the BSD project
On 14/06/07, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
on SPARC, where it may need a bit more work? I'd _really_ like
to be able to use it so as to get more (OSS-aware) audio and MIDI
apps, but for me that would require:
* legacy /dev/audio and /dev/audioctl support to work
(so I can use
Well, I see that the code is out there:
http://developer.opensound.com/sources/
Thank you!
Now, if anyone starts working on it for Solaris, would they
_please_ post, blog, or otherwise share whatever they learn
in the process? Especially wrt effective problem reporting,
troubleshooting, etc? A
> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for
> BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL
> since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
>
> regards
> Dev Mazumdar
Hello;
I suggested the CDDL for the BSDs too so I won't hide I like this decision very
much. Thank you!
That said, I wanted
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
http://openbsd.org/policy.html
The important section to this discussion would be the one on the GPL and
copyleft; they don't like it. They would be will
"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it's my understanding that the OpenBSD folk want to have as many
> > people using their code as possible, so they need as-free-as-possible
> > code. Copyleft locks down certain commercial
>The most pathetic one I've seen is complaints about the
>choice-of-venue clause where some people believe the author of the
>software apparently deserves less protection than the user even though
>the author is the one that created the valuable item they're using in
>the first place.
Another mis
On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it's my understanding that the OpenBSD folk want to have as many
people using their code as possible, so they need as-free-as-possible
code. Copyleft locks down certain commercial uses of it, so it doesn't
support that goal; it's more
Well, it's my understanding that the OpenBSD folk want to have as many
people using their code as possible, so they need as-free-as-possible
code. Copyleft locks down certain commercial uses of it, so it doesn't
support that goal; it's more than mere handwaving to them, it's part of
their philo
On 12/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
>>
>> http://openbsd.org/policy.html
>>
>> The important section to this discussion would be the
On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
http://openbsd.org/policy.html
The important section to this discussion would be the one on the GPL and
copyleft; they don't like it. They would be willing to consider it fo
It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
http://openbsd.org/policy.html
The important section to this discussion would be the one on the GPL and
copyleft; they don't like it. They would be willing to consider it for
non-core things as long as it's separable-- so that Op
This is great!
Hopefully this will bring back people in the Linux camp who have shifted to
ALSA; which has all the marks of a proprietary solution except it's under the
GPL ;)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why
> >> OpenBSD can't work wit
> h CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
> >>
> >
> >The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files
>On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why
>> OpenBSD can't work wit
h CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>>
>
>The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
>to be included by default
On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why
OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
to be included by default in the ker
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why
> OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
>
Good move, the more useful code released under CDDL the better.
Ian
___
opensolaris-disc
After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why
OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
regards
Dev Mazumdar
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-dis
> The main thing is that we want people to be
> comfortable contributing patches and code and not
> feel like their work is being misappropriated.
I don't think that will be much of a problem even if OSS is released under a
BSD/MIT style licence.
The advantage of choosing a BSD/MIT style licen
I'm looking at the flip side, hoping that this will be an opportunity
to improve support on the SPARC side (since OSS opens up the
possibility of more easily porting Linux audio and eventually MIDI apps).
Right now, although the OSS drivers exist for SPARC, there are a
number of devices they don't
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June
> 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2
> for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc
+1
Wow , thanks alot , OSS is really the only product out there that supports
a larg
Edd wrote:
> I back up the idea of releasing OSS (and ZFS while we are at it), into
> something that BSD's can import into thier base distribution.
>
> I work a lot with OpenBSD, and I am pretty sure that they will not be
> looking to import OSS because of licence restrictions (same as ZFS).
>
>
Try here:
http://manuals.opensound.com/developer/
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I back up the idea of releasing OSS (and ZFS while we are at it), into
something that BSD's can import into thier base distribution.
I work a lot with OpenBSD, and I am pretty sure that they will not be looking
to import OSS because of licence restrictions (same as ZFS).
Shame...
This mess
Ugh.. I meant the CDDL... FreeBSD can include CDDL'd code (like ZFS) but GPL'd
or even LGPL causes a lot of trouble.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hello;
Great news!
Standing from my FreeBSD user point of view... I would *really* prefer the SCSL
over the GPL.
Thanks so much for this!
Pedro.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@op
> I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war,
> but is there going to be a BSD / MIT licensed
> version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some)
> of the BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL
> code in the base). It might not see much enthusiasm
> from the BSD community at large
Criveti Mihai writes:
> I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war, but is there going to be
> a BSD / MIT licensed version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some) of
> the BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL code in the base). It might
> not see much enthusiasm from the BS
I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war, but is there going to be a
BSD / MIT licensed version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some) of the
BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL code in the base). It might not see
much enthusiasm from the BSD community at large otherwise
Thanks for the warm reception to Open Sound. We really are looking forward to
working with the community and getting the community to start looking at audio
on Solaris in a serious way.
Best regards
Dev
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Awesome news! I've really enjoyed the ease with which OpenSound works
on my boxes. Thanks 4Front!
-- richard
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
32 matches
Mail list logo
