On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
can be free with a venue choice that you do not consider sane), so
I must have
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
can be free with a venue
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
in account only if the licence is broken,
There's your mistake. A choice-of-venue clause becomes
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Do we really think it's a good idea to approve of giving copyright
holders extra leverage for such lawsuits in their license, and just
hope that none of these copyrights ever wind up in the
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-07 07:31:48]:
Ok, but this is not what has been floating around, either here, or on the open
solaris mailing lists. I mostly see wild claims and plain FUD and such.
Even Jörg Schilling is there. (c:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:35:54AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue
clause,
There's a far more serious problem, which has nothing to do with the
DFSG - the FSF's interpretation of the GPL
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the normally
distributed with the major components of the operating system on
which the executable runs clause of the GPL?
Read that sentence closely. If _you_ are distributing _both_ libc and
gplfoo, then the normally
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
debian-legal, full of chinese dissidents and desert islands :)
The only sane solution and the one i
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:32:09AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the normally
distributed with the major components of the operating system on which
the executable runs clause of the GPL?
Irrelevant. In addition to what Peter said, you should
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
debian-legal, full of chinese dissidents
* Matthew Garrett:
Hmm. From a technical side of things, how much effort is going to have
to go into porting glibc in order to support all the nice features of
the Solaris kernel? From the legal side of things, I'd be surprised if
any upload of CDDLed material was rejected out of hand.
The
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the normally
distributed with the major components of the operating system on which
the executable runs clause of the GPL?
I used to think that, too, but the GPL actually reads:
| However, as a special exception, the
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:24:19AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-07 07:31:48]:
Ok, but this is not what has been floating around, either here, or on the
open
solaris mailing lists. I mostly see wild claims and plain FUD and such.
Even Jörg
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
debian-legal, full of chinese
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:47:14AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the normally
distributed with the major components of the operating system on
which the executable runs clause of the GPL?
Read that sentence closely.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
can be free with a venue choice that you do not consider sane), so
I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
If we replace sane
On Monday 05 September 2005 20:59, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
The Sun folks understand full well the power of a debian port of
openSolaris and the lift they would get from it. (c:
Hmm. It would be nice if they were as supportive for the sparc port. Maybe
we could make a package deal :-P
* Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-05 20:59:10]:
some discussion happend here, but later on in the thread it
becomes clear that there is a lot of confusion of the official
position of debian towards a debian with an opensolars kernel.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:04:21AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-05 20:59:10]:
some discussion happend here, but later on in the thread it
becomes clear that there is a lot of confusion of the official
position of debian towards a debian with an
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue clause,
which i am perosnally dubious of it falling the DFSG (as readers of
debian-legal my know, and others can search for QPL and ocaml there).
There's a far more serious problem, which
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:35:54AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue clause,
which i am perosnally dubious of it falling the DFSG (as readers of
debian-legal my know, and others can search
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sure, but in the case of an OpenSolaris kernel with a glibc based
userland, as we are considering, the point is moot, as the kernel/userland
interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
the lone choice of venue thingy,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:55:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sure, but in the case of an OpenSolaris kernel with a glibc based
userland, as we are considering, the point is moot, as the kernel/userland
interface is enough to stop any
I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
openSolaris in the course of the recent announcement.
However he said it would stay with the CDDL and was not aware how
that would hinder a debian port of openSolaris.
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
openSolaris in the course of the recent announcement.
However he said it would stay with the CDDL
* Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-05 21:14:20]:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
openSolaris in the course of the recent
27 matches
Mail list logo
