On 27/08/07, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:44:46 -0500, you wrote: > > >> The problem apparently is that the files for the build system are > >> licenced under the CDDL, which apparently is a problem for the GPL > >> components of cdrtools. > > > >Sorry, but that is an interpretation of the requirements of the GPL > >that not all individuals share. > > Fair enough. > > I only thought is wise to bring to the JDS community's attention that > a package they were considering using was: > > a) no longer used by the Linux community so the JDS folks would likely > end up having to maintain anything created on their own as it would > have no usefullness outside of the JDS/Solaris community. > > b) shunned by the Linux community for alleged licence issues, which > could make getting changes made to existing Gnome programs > problematic. > > I am sorry if my concerns offended you. > > >Quite frankly, please drop this thread now. > > As you demand you shall get. I will be gone after this, you have made > it clear I am not welcome here.
I never said you were not welcome here, I merely stated that the topic you were discussing was probably not. > >Having a license war on this list is a great way to lose a lot of list > >subscribers. > > Congratulations, you achieved your goal. Your rudeness had not only > cost this list a subscriber, but I will leave Solaris entirely. I do not believe that I was rude in any way; your decision is unfortunate. > While I think Solaris is an amazing system, and I don't think that the > 6 months I have spent learning about it and starting to create spec > files to return to the community was a waste, it is obvious from these > mailing lists that the Solaris community is not a friendly place for > newcomers. This is desktop-discuss, and license discussions just aren't appropriate here. It is disappointing that you find that offensive. However, I believe that I merely stated what I felt was an accurate portrayal of expectations. > >Please take your discussion regarding the license off list or to somewhere > >else. > > Sorry, silly me. I thought this was opensolaris, not > closed-and-secret-solaris. I guess I was wrong. All the more reason > to leave. A desire to not have flamewars or license discussions is not reflective of the openness of a community, but rather an indication that focus is important. At no time did I indicate you or your actions were frivolous in nature. Beginning a license discussion on unrelated lists for almost any project, and you will find just as many individuals that are not receptive and that would not desire such a discussion there, either unless the purpose of that mailing list is to discuss legal or licensing issues. I wish you well wherever you end up, but I feel that your interpretations are not reflective of this community, nor of my statements. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth
