Joerg Schilling wrote: > Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Saturday 22 April 2006 09:06 am, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>> With that said, I'll post to my blog about this "controversary article" >>>> in the next day or two. >>> I for one, love your blog. I will watch for that ! >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/aland#sun_is_working_true_to >> >> Provided as feedback to them down under as well. > > Some feedback: > > - You are true: Free/Open Software was well known before > Richaed Stallman did start the GNU project. > > - But The GPL requires to publish scripts for the compilation > (see GPL §3) in case you publish binaries. However it is > unclear whether this includes Makefiles. But note that > this only seem to apply for people who publish binaries > created from GPLd software > > - And unfortunately, the CDDL does not have such a clause. I belive this comment is about the following
"As an example, when Red Hat released the sources to their Enterprise Server, but didn't provide any of the Makefiles or configure scripts to create them. Of course there is nothing in the GPL to keep folks from holding back the Makefiles and configure scripts to create them. That was something that was not "true to the spirit"." I dont understant your point, CDDL is mainly a file based license, that means you can use a CDDL licenced file inside your closed source project as long as you make every chance you made to that file available to the community, why would i, for example want the makefiles of that project if i dont have the rest of the souces?. forcing them to include things like makefiles only makes sense in project based licenses like the GPL maybe i'm missing something, could you please explain? nacho _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
