On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:12:18 +0100, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software
>> >> A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said
>> >> tools,
>>
On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A
> >> is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said
> >> tools,
>
> Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer
> scripts, added
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:48:20 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
>> > [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in
>> > this
>> > case, anyway.
>> I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the
>> con
Scribit Anthony Towns dies 11/11/2005 hora 16:43:
> The problem is a technicality, not a moral or practical difference
> from the GPL's expectations: you still have the source to OpenSolaris
> libc, and you still have permission to modify it, redistribute it,
> sell it, etc.
Didn't someone ask for
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > Bill Gatliff writes:
> > > Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft.
> > Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner
> > is not be
On Friday 11 November 2005 19:36, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Let's consider this dpkg binary from the GNU/Solaris LiveCD, which I have
> > loop
> > mounted:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ ./dpkg
> > bash: ./dpkg: No
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:18:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > > many of Erast's res
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:10:06 -0600, Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> No, the owner hasn't been deprived. But the rights said owner
> conveyed via the GPL (which amount to some level of ownership, at
> least philosophically) have been deprived from the GNU/Solaris end
> users. It's
Glenn:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Bill Gatliff writes:
Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft.
Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner
is not being deprived of any property.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Bill Gatliff writes:
> > Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft.
>
> Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner
> is not being deprived of any property.
There's something darkly amusing about
Bill Gatliff writes:
> Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft.
Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner
is not being deprived of any property.
> Whether Erast did so with malicious intent, that's another question
> entirely.
It is not. Theft requires
Bill Gatliff writes:
> With all due respect, and a certain unwillingness to get distracted
> from the main thread of discussion or to further inflame an already
> pretty volatile situation, I think that "theft" may in fact be the
> appropriate term to use here.
Theft, n.:
1. (Law) The act of
On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this
> > > case, anyway.
> >
> > I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained
Anthony:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people
remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here?
No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic,
> > > and at worst showed a complete
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> >And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people
> >remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here?
> No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big
> difference.
F
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this
> > case, anyway.
> I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained
> Debian tools in more ways than "mere" dynamic linking.
That do
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:40:07PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> Also, with this email, I am making a formal request: I am the original author
> of DBS, the most widely used patch system available in debian. This system
> tends to want to be embedded inside each and every package that makes use of
>
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 05:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For those playing along at home, the CDDL isn't GPL compatible, and
> OpenSolaris's libc is CDDL'ed -- so anything GPLed can't link to libc
> since that would violate 3(a) [0]. The reason GPL'ed software is okay
> for regular Solaris is th
Scribit Alex Ross dies 08/11/2005 hora 11:36:
> Overnight we actually did remove the downloads.
I'm downloading the LiveCD image right now from a link in the download
page[1]. Do I have to understand that you corrected the GPL violation
problem and that I can find all the sources the GPL gives me
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic,
> > and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about.
>
> Speaking of antagonistic...
> To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to
> any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does
> things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify
> my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting
> D
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries
>> next
>> to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust>) in your
>> "open
>> source" project ?
>
> George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objectio
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next
> to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust>) in your "open
> source" project ?
George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objections that
have
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
>> >> find
>> >> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it
>> is
>> >> not committed yet and w
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
> >> find
> >> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
> >> not committed yet and we are test
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:09, Erast Benson wrote:
> David,
>
> this is the place were source code lives:
>
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
>
> or
>
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> If you do not see something specific, or
Anthony:
Loved your "for those of you following at home" post.
As is "pressing" people. You can justify hostility, certainly; but it's
at least worth trying "honest and cooperative" as an approach first.
It didn't start out that way, not as I read it anyway.
When you see some code that's
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> You'll note that even in the initial part of the thread when Debian
> folks were (generally) being polite,
From the very first response:
] > and openness.
] You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it
Anthony Towns writes:
> When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms,
> what's your reaction:
>
> (a) gosh, what can I do to convince the author to give it to me
> under the GPL?
>
> (b) you aren't/shouldn't be allowed to do that. stop now.
>
> (c) *shrug*
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:23:30AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major
> > contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major
> > OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:29:31PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> I think that in this instant case, the "hostility" is the allegation
> that a Debian-based "GNU/Solaris" system as described by Erast isn't
> possible.
Of course it's possible. Trivially: you do it by buying a majority of
shares i
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:39:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major
> contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major
> OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris,
> BSD and Linux.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> > The source and binaries *must* match, period. You can't have tarballs
> > being
> > constantly upgraded, and the binaries not, or vice versa. The
> > source+binary
> > must be done as a whole unit.
> >
> > Also, with this email, I am making a formal re
Anthony:
I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major
contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major
OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris,
BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the
fac
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major
> contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major
> OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris,
> BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were
> notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't
> care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*,
> exploiting the "GNU" and "
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
>
>> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
>> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
>> modifications for every package we are using.
>>
>> We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 20:29, Erast Benson wrote:
> > For example, I have found
> > http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i
> >386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on
> > the ISO image, but no corresponding source package unde
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
> modifications for every package we are using.
>
> We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we
On 11/8/05, Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that we have limited resources.
How is that relevant?
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andy Teijelo Pérez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL
sources very soon. Majority of them alr
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote:
>> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
>> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
>> modifications for every package we are using.
>>
>> We are preparing cron job, so, will update them
Andy Teijelo Pérez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
>> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL
>> > sources very soon. Majority of them already available at
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote:
> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
> modifications for every package we are using.
>
> We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote:
>> www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*.
>
> Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs
> (i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface.
>
>> > this URL also does _neither_ offer access t
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:43:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> You could send them e.g. a DMCA Takedown Notice. Especially as they
> didn't listen before. Of course only if you're the author of one of the
> relevant programms.
you could also send their isp(s) and/or hosting provider(s) said
tak
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051108 07:11]:
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources
> > very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is
> > comming.
> Once again, delete the binari
* Andy Teijelo Pérez:
> El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
>> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL
>> > sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest
>> > is c
El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL
> > sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest
> > is comming.
>
> Once again, delet
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote:
> www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*.
Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs
(i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface.
> > this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
>
> this is the place were source code lives:
>
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
, Permission Denied
| Insufficient permissions to access /gnusolaris1/gnu
`
Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 07:35:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
> > > (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my
> > > other mail.
>
> > I'm
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources
> very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is
> comming.
Once again, delete the binaries *now*.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>
>> this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
>> > (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested
>> in my
>> > other mail.
>
>> I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
> > (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my
> > other mail.
> I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until
> they wil
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Dear Erast!
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
>> >> > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and
>> libgcc_s.so.1,
>> >> >
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Dear Erast!
> >
> > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
> >> > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
> >> > which must
Hi!
* Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051108 01:48]:
> > (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my
> > other mail.
> I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until
> they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development,
> Dear Erast!
>
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
>> > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
>> > which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL
>> > sections one and
Dear Erast!
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
> > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
> > which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL
> > sections one and two.
>
>
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK. point taken. This will be "fixed" soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which
> bits is planned to be release by the end of this week.
That is not acceptible. You must fix it now, not soon. You can fix
it by, for example, removing the binaries you are dist
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
>>> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>>
>> Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
>> find
>> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
>> not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed
>> shortly.
>
> Erast,
>
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find
> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
> not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed
> shortly.
Erast,
Unless you pr
David,
this is the place were source code lives:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
or
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find
debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiv
Dear Alex!
On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > David Schmitt writes:
> >> I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
> >> website and found a dpkg binary on it.
> >>
> >> Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
>> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
> libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and lib
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> I hope I "honored" your orignal request now. :-)
It was not my request. Where is the C library, and is it bei
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> What is this "will be"? You are distributing binaries now; you must
>>> therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible
>>> with the GPL.
>>
>> You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the
>> source di
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What is this "will be"? You are distributing binaries now; you must
>> therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible
>> with the GPL.
>
> You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the
> source directly fr
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to
>>> check
>>> the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any?
>>
>> you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris
>> is a complete o
"Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check
>> the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any?
>
> you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris
> is a complete open source p
> David Schmitt writes:
>> I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
>> website
>> and found a dpkg binary on it.
>
>> Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
>> despite it being obviously under the GPL[2].
>
> Was the requisite written offer
On Monday 07 November 2005 21:29, John Hasler wrote:
> David Schmitt writes:
> > I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
> > website and found a dpkg binary on it.
> >
> > Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
> > despite it being obvious
John Hasler wrote:
David Schmitt writes:
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website
and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
despite it being obviously under the GPL[2].
Was the requisite written
David Schmitt writes:
> I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website
> and found a dpkg binary on it.
> Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
> despite it being obviously under the GPL[2].
Was the requisite written offer included?
Dear GNU/Solaris Team!
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website
and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite
it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Therefore I request you kindly to make
the source
79 matches
Mail list logo
