Hi,
I tried to download and run Live CD but without
success. I think that collaboration of enterprise forces of
Solaris-security,stable,expandableand usability of Debian platform is
great idea. I'm a sys admin in Institute of Computer and Comm. Systems - Bulg.
Academy of Science. Ourefforts
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 my answer was
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 pursue a legal
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 developers
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 through APT
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 asking
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 the
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.
This is
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 queried
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
GPLed
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 any
(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
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 reject
* 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? The copy
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 from a trusted
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 some
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 handle
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 that
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.
Lets assume you
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
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 must be
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,
wrong,
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. Erast's statement may
* 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 [EMAIL
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 incomprehensible gibberish.
This is
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 to the
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 is
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 *distributed* changes to
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
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 do not
* 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.
Any
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 you have GPL-ed
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. plonk
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christian Perrier wrote:
dpkg hat
As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment
for
the Sodomotron 2000.
/dpkg hat
...which could certainly have been written:
dpkg hat
As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
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 exactly the
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 didn't
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
contributed
* 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.
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 regnen,
-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
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
On Friday 04 November 2005 19.00, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Complete bullshit. Get a life. plonk
Ahhh, yet another instance of asuffield.
-- vbi
--
featured product: GNU Privacy Guard - http://gnupg.org
pgpToLVOlXVEk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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 practice
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 09:54 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Ross:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute
software which is licensed under the
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have ours:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many
Erast Benson wrote:
btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for
download, so, one could try to install and see.
Sun Microsystem's Solaris 10 binary release is available without fee,
but it's not free as in Free Software (despite that the underlying
source code is largely licensed
Wouter Verhelst writes:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
Erast Benson wrote:
But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL?
I believe you've misunderstood Thomas.
What Thomas is trying to get across, I think, is that whatever Sun does
or does not do has little to no significance for your own case. In
particular, but Sun does it too does not
Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system
runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
fact, it is even more
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code
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 through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will
Erast Benson wrote:
any others ideas?
(c) Have whoever is in charge of the CDDL remove the parts from CDDL
that make it GPL incompatible in the next revision of CDDL.
That should most of your problems at once.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
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 developers regarding compliance with the
license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.
And I will unkindly *demand* that
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright
holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that
are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am
one of them).
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 through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
On Thursday 03 November 2005 04.37, Erast Benson wrote:
If don't, Nexenta will continue its way more like Ubuntu does.
You'll hire heaps of Debian developers and actually pay people to contribute
their stuff back to Debian? Now there's a thing! Which Debian developers
are in your pay (just
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 port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
suvirve.
Please stop
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 port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
suvirve.
Being
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
Matthew:
[...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.
So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this
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 regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?
Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
Erast Benson wrote:
There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
^
Trademark point. Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive?
If you are not, you must not call this a Debian
Erast Benson writes:
This should help FreeBSD ... non-glibc ports to suvirve.
In what way does the GPL licensing of dpkg harm such FreeBSD ports?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
to force developers do duplicate their work.
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere aggregation clause than the
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 developers regarding compliance with the
license of that code seriously,
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 making main Nexenta OS CD to be
GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett 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 port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
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 port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My reading of the interface definition files clause is that it only
applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation
files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the build
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, 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
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 now.
ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
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 needs, we're missing a great
opportunity. I've got news for you: the great
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 will be wise for Debian
community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as associated interface
definition files.
Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
covers.
Then we will have to disagree on
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 would allow
people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we
Erast writes:
But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to
release dpkg under LGPL license.
That's entirely up to the authors. You are free to contact them.
Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports.
Again you imply that the BSD license is not
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
Matthew:
[...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to
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 regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?
OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken.
Thanks.
Erast
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as associated interface
definition files.
Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
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 people are already violating
the GPL, we are forced to do something other than
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
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of
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
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication
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 making main
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 regarding CDDL being not
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 core
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 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 now.
ok.
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 needs,
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 will be wise
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 to think the
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 would allow
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 people are
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
variant of
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
stabilizes?
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 surprised
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
