[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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? And from my perspective, double-especially 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 the apps I have as well as the new ones I want) * better performance on USB devices (simple Logitech headset has glitchesdrops plugged into a USB2.0 board on a Sun Blade 2000, yet runs great with the native usb_as driver. * Audigy NX USB won't come out of mute state. * some not-too-expensive USB-MIDI interface to work (for sending, and ideally also for receiving, MIDI commands). I've got a fair bit of a clue on general troubleshooting (although not yet with dtrace), less of a clue on kernel stuff (I could understand or do a _really_simple_ driver, but this hardly simple!), and very little as yet on OSS, digital audio, or MIDI. And...do we get a mailing list/Jive forum assuming the project proposal was approved? While signing up for 4frpnts oss-devel mailing list might be great for general stuff (and I just did), I don't know that it would be much help for Solaris-specific stuff. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 the apps I have as well as the new ones I want) That's already there; I'm sure it might still be able to use improvement, but it is definitely not completely missing. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 projects have a proper sound system at the moment. Sure, OpenSolaris is the prime target here, and I'm sure there will be a good amount of community action, but I don't see any harm in making it BSD. Linux already has ALSA, then there's PulseAudio for a sound system... it might be a bit complicated to penetrate that market. Integration into Solaris and BSD projects would guarantee success, even on the Linux market. And a common framework would be wonderfull. 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.). There's virtually no real life OS (worth mentioning) that has their entire source code available under only one license. It bad be BSD, MIT (lighter version of the 3 clause BSD license), 4 clause BSD license and so on. Most also incorporate GPL in some form or another (as compiler tools or libraries). I just can't see how this is legally binding. You either make it part of your license (and then it's not CDDL, and it's a licensing nightmare where you're not sure it's legal or not to use it) or you stick to a generic license and that's it. This whole: It's GPL for this, it's CDDL for that, but there's FAQs and exceptions can lead to confusion from most projects, I'd hate to see the project stale due to such things. - A: Non open sourced operating systems such as SCO UnixWare/OpenServer are not covered by the above open source licenses. However we have decided to release the source code of OSS also for them. Users of such operating systems will need a commercial license from 4Front Technologies to use the software legally. I can't see how this would be legally binding either. Or make any sense. By all means, I don't think it would matter in any form if SCO raped and pillaged every source code on the planet, with their current financial situation, they are going down. The answers from some OpenSource community leaders might not have been appropriate in this case, maybe even discouraging, but they tend to stick by an inflexible policy in terms of licensing. Thanks again for going open source, and thanks go to your sponsor too :-). This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 OpenSolaris, neither of which have the full source code available under any license, and which have major parts under other licenses (including GPL portions such as GNOME gcc). -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 misconception is that the choice of venue clause allows you to drag someone to a court far a field; no, it only *further limits* where a court case can be heard. The court has to have jurisdiction first. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 uses of it, so it doesn't support that goal; it's more than mere handwaving to them, it's part of their philosophy and goals. The GNU people, naturally, have very different goals. I'm not aware of any specific commercial uses that would be prohibited by the CDDL. You can statically, dynamically, or whatever link to CDDL code; it isn't like the LGPL. The GPL does not forbid linking and the GPL does not distinguish between staic and dynamic linking. Forget the wrong GPL FAQ from the FSF. The GPL does not contain the term liniking at all. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 to clarify this: while FreeBSD and NetBSD *can* include CDDL code, it's not sure they will. In the past the *BSD version of OSS was released under a BSD license and the linux version was released under the GPL. FreeBSD still carries the BSD-licensed version and a Google SoC project updated the API wrt the 4.0 version. I think FreeBSD will keep the BSD version in the tree and will move slowly to the new OSS version depending on it's merits. Why slowly? they have done a pretty good job recently to keep many drivers (notably HDA) working and there's no need to replace it soon. I probably shouldn't ask this: but perhaps the Artistic license would be as near as OSS could go to make the code as free as possible, still keeping some control over it? I suspect it would be more acceptable for the BSDs, except of course for OpenBSD that still expects that the world to adapt to their own little world, and won't accept the artistic license either, but maybe it's a further incentive for the other BSDs. I don't know... just a wild guess. Another option would be to make have the code become BSDL after a period of time (2010?). That has been an incentive for other code that has made it into the base system like vinum and the softupdates code. I do hate licensing issues and I will get with whatever works for most people ;-). Thanks again for making OSS opensource! Pedro. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 in the kernel and then have the binary result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/ DTrace. The binaries are never under the CDDL; they are under whatever binary license you have; the source is under the CDDL. I thought it was largely political the core must be bure BSD licensed or some such. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
[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 not being able to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/ DTrace. The binaries are never under the CDDL; they are under whatever binary license you have; the source is under the CDDL. Smilar rules apply to the GPL. It is a common misstake to believe that binaries from GPLd sources are under the GPL. Binaries cannot be distributed under a license that is in conflict with the source license, that's all. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 OpenBSD itself can be put into commercial products without source release. The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD. Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask their founder; I know that Theo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has always been willing to share his beliefs on licensing. ---Brendan O'Connor [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 not being able to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/ DTrace. The binaries are never under the CDDL; they are under whatever binary license you have; the source is under the CDDL. I thought it was largely political the core must be bure BSD licensed or some such. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 for non-core things as long as it's separable-- so that OpenBSD itself can be put into commercial products without source release. The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD. Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask their founder; I know that Theo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has always been willing to share his beliefs on licensing. They seem to treat all copyleft licenses as one requiring all works be distributed under them, meaning, they don't seem to fairly or accurately represent other copyleft licenses such as MPL, CDDL, etc. As you said, someone just needs to ask Theo. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 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 OpenBSD itself can be put into commercial products without source release. The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD. Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask their founder; I know that Theo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has always been willing to share his beliefs on licensing. They seem to treat all copyleft licenses as one requiring all works be distributed under them, meaning, they don't seem to fairly or accurately represent other copyleft licenses such as MPL, CDDL, etc. As you said, someone just needs to ask Theo. Bottom line is that we will announce Open Sound under CDDL to the BSD communities. If they want to come to the table to negotiate a different license, we're open to it but what is NOT negotiable is the freedom to take the standard implementation and go off and modify the API. We also want to prevent the non-open source POSIX operating systems (you know who you are) from taking the BSD code and deriving benefit. For non-opensource people - we have the 4Front proprietary license ;-) I wholeheartedly support this approach. A copyleft license of some form is absolutely necessary if your goals are to keep modifications to the standard base open. So far, I haven't seen any reasons why *BSD distributions can't use CDDL'd code other than personal preference or handwaving. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 philosophy and goals. The GNU people, naturally, have very different goals. That said, I am not one of the OpenBSD inner circle. I did invite Theo to comment on this thread, however, and I hope that he will do so at some point. ---Brendan O'Connor Shawn Walker wrote: 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 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 OpenBSD itself can be put into commercial products without source release. The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD. Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask their founder; I know that Theo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has always been willing to share his beliefs on licensing. They seem to treat all copyleft licenses as one requiring all works be distributed under them, meaning, they don't seem to fairly or accurately represent other copyleft licenses such as MPL, CDDL, etc. As you said, someone just needs to ask Theo. Bottom line is that we will announce Open Sound under CDDL to the BSD communities. If they want to come to the table to negotiate a different license, we're open to it but what is NOT negotiable is the freedom to take the standard implementation and go off and modify the API. We also want to prevent the non-open source POSIX operating systems (you know who you are) from taking the BSD code and deriving benefit. For non-opensource people - we have the 4Front proprietary license ;-) I wholeheartedly support this approach. A copyleft license of some form is absolutely necessary if your goals are to keep modifications to the standard base open. So far, I haven't seen any reasons why *BSD distributions can't use CDDL'd code other than personal preference or handwaving. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 than mere handwaving to them, it's part of their philosophy and goals. The GNU people, naturally, have very different goals. I'm not aware of any specific commercial uses that would be prohibited by the CDDL. You can statically, dynamically, or whatever link to CDDL code; it isn't like the LGPL. As I said, I haven't heard any good reasons yet. 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. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 kernel and then have the binary result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/ DTrace. Personally, I don't buy it, but whatever. Licensing stinks. -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 licence is that about any free operating system project is able to include the OSS code into their system. An aim that is surely pursued by 4front. Choosing GPL/CDDL however, _will_ keep projects out of OSS. It's not my intend to start a flame war here; an unbiased look at the different projects out there and their precepts regarding licences will lead to the very same conclusion. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 large set of soundcards. even some chipsets that is not widely used. OEM manufacturers are not putting CREATIVE chipsets on their MOBO's today, but use any thing they can integrate at low cost. OSS will be a large step forward to enable general availability of audio apps regardless of what chipset the OEM has used on the MOBO. //Lars This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 work so well (or at all) with; the performance with my Logitech USB headset is poor, while my Creative Audigy NX USB doesn't work at all. And if the Solaris audio will move in the direction of OSS, maybe support for the onboard audio (like what the audiocs driver presently handles) and the Solaris compatibility devices of OSS (which presently don't seem to work either, at least on SPARC) will improve. I think OSS has a lot of promise, and on x86, it's about the only way to go in many cases; but on SPARC, it needs work, and hopefully this will let that work be done. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Try here: http://manuals.opensound.com/developer/ This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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. Still, this is great news, since OpenSound is pretty much the only way to get reliable sound drivers for UNIX. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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 BSD community at large otherwise. Inserting CDDL into the base, though, shouldn't be a problem, should it? Solaris has plenty of BSD-licensed code. ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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. Still, this is great news, since OpenSound is pretty much the only way to get reliable sound drivers for UNIX. For the BSD folks, OSS is going to be GPLv2 + Additional rights (namely linking GPL drivers with BSD kernel ). If it's a problem we'll be happy to discuss licensing. The main thing is that we want people to be comfortable contributing patches and code and not feel like their work is being misappropriated. Regards Dev Mazumdar This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
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
