ase under this license.
At any rate, I'd like to hear comments of all forms. The attached
license is a draft, and I would like it to be a good, fair, and
sound license, in every sense of those words.
Justin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 05:27:52PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> It's very hard to determine whether two products compete with one
> another. I wouldn't call a license which puts that burden on me
> ``simple.''
I agree.
I tried to deal with that in this license by defining "competes"
to m
he right to use, copy, reproduce, distribute, display,
perform, and sublicense the software, and to charge a fee
for any of these purposes.
Justin
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 08:04:48PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Justin Wells scripsit:
>
> > Our software is our property, and it
version of the GPL which allows Evil Corp. to make
proprietary use of any GPL'd software.
Maybe it would be safer to write, "or any later version which Richard M.
Stallman personally approves of", assuming that RMS is strong minded
enough never to join a cult run by Evil Corp.'s p
an issue after all.
Justin
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Justin Wells wrote:
> > This "or any later version" has always bugged me. What if the FSF loses
> > a lawsuit against Evil Corp., and in order to pay a judgement, all of
> > the FSF's intellectual property ri
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 01:56:38PM -0400, Chris F Clark wrote:
> I don't know if this will help, but the licenses I have seen with
> non-compete clauses say exactly what the user's aren't allowed to
> build. If your tool is an "interpreter that runs servlets", then say
> the users aren't allowe
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:47:05PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Close reading of the GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, and Artistic licenses
> show them to consist of 1) a nonexclusive copyright license and 2)
> a disclaimer of warranty. There is and can be no contract whatever,
> as the formal elements of a
ms, suggestions?
I am especially interested in suggestions that would make it simpler.
Justin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Simple Public License
(c) 1999 Justin Wells
All Rights Reserved
*** DRAFT: NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT ***
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 03:52:35PM +0200, Philipp Gühring wrote:
> >I sure I'm not done yet: comments, problems, suggestions?
> There is one big problem, Richard Stallman made me aware of: The
> compatibility between licenses. I wanted to add just one article to
> the GPL, which was already cov
:13AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Forgive me for being busy and tired. If there's anything I haven't covered
> here, please ask.
There's no rush. The longer this takes, the more peoples ideas I am
able to solicit :-)
> From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 12:52:22PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> But you still have many other rights as an owner of a copy of the copyrighted
> work. For example, you can study it to learn things. But the ASCA
> keeps ownership (not merely copyright-ownership, but full ownership)
> of every copy
Sorry to interrupt, but, since you pulled out the philosophy card, I
couldn't help responding to this:
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 01:44:53AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Frankly, perhaps what I object to is your self-characterization as
> > ``public adv
While some of the discussion seems to have gone too far afield, I think
perhaps much of it was important.
I question the viability of an opensource license discussion list on
which opensource philosophy is off topic. How can we say what is or
isn't in the licensing interests of the opensourc
discussion on each of the reviewed licenses.
Justin
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 06:59:32AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I question the viability of an opensource license discussion list on
> > which opensource philosophy is off topic.
&
Regarding Corel and licensing:
Some people claim that because the Corel testers are some manner
of consultants, it is an "internal" thing and therefore not covered
by the GPL.
I see nothing in the GPL that makes any exemption for internal copying.
Presumably if I give a copy of GPL'd code to s
If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it
and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right
to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development".
Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software?
Ordinary copyright law
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
> > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exem
I'm not sure there is any good way to cover up the fact that the
opensource and free software movement is a collection of individuals
with independent personalities and viewpoints, that sometimes
conflict, rather than a corporation with a marketting department
and project managers.
Understandabl
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:47:57AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Examples of copying books, which are covered by copyright law,
> and examples of software covered by other licenses are illustrative,
> and useful when discussing philosophy, but they cannot be used
> to reason about the
ersion of my license will fit the OSD, and I can move
on to letting my lawyer brutalize it.
Justin
Simple Public License
(c) 1999 Justin Wells
This license lets you use our software for free, create freely available
modified versions of it, and sell
Here's a generic question: What kind of survivability clause is appropriate
in an opensource license?
This is no good, if the license forbids introducing a dependency on
non-free code (such as the LGPL does, and my SPL draft does):
In the event that you breach this license, your rights to
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 10:09:06AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
>
> Here's a generic question: What kind of survivability clause is appropriate
> in an opensource license?
How about this:
You may not copy, distribute, display, perform, sublicense, or modify
our soft
cense
(c) 1999 Justin Wells
All Rights Reserved
This license lets you use our software for free, create freely available
modified versions of it, and sell non-free binary applications based on
it. In return, you have to give us credit. Since our softwa
Some people I know are setting up a couple of clusters to do computational
quantum chemistry. They have a small grant now to buy a bunch of computers
and begin chugging away. Once that's done and they understand the ins and
outs of it in their own labs, they're going to consider trying to
creat
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 01:30:05PM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> That's the issue in a nutshell. The Free Software movement verges on taking
> the position that the only legitimate way for programmers to make money is
> to provide services.
You're being a little extreme here. I don't think
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 06:34:22AM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> >> Also, hardly any programmers have any right to receive royalties derived
> >> from the works they create. It's very rare. The vast majority of programmers
> >> exchange a programming service for a regular paycheque, and grant
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 08:09:00AM -0700, L. Peter Deutsch wrote:
> IMO, what made the difference was enforceable "intellectual property"
> rights, which are a relatively new concept historically. Are you suggesting
> that the concept of "intellectual property" is (or should be) a brief detour
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> >But I don't have time to go off on that large tangent now.
>
> I think you should make time, as this is a very important question.
> Certainly, you must feel cheated if you buy non-free food, don't you
> Richard? I mean, if
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything
> > you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often
> > doesn't prefer this license ...
>
> If
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 03:02:37PM -0500, Tom Hull wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > The only thing in GNU/Linux which is Linux is the kernel.
>
> Is this really a true statement?
>
> What about lilo? What about kerneld? Other user level (non-kernel)
> daemons and utilities?
You're rig
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 01:54:01PM -0400, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > When patents and copyrights were adopted, in general they did not
> > interfere with the public's use of the works they were designed to
> > encourage, and they did encourage progress. I think that ma
On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> You've said this before, and you've yet to convince me.
> I do not believe you can fairly make the 'principal developer'
> claim unless the project was working to the same goals as
> the Linux project.
If you stripped Linu
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 04:39:35PM +0930, Ross N. Williams wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have created a new free software licence on which I would appreciate
> some feedback. The licence is called the "Free World Licence" and its
> main feature is that it allows the software to be used on free pla
What can be done in a copyright license to effect something like a
copyleft for scripts? The issue also applies to dynamically linked
libraries as well, and will become a bigger deal as technologies
likes CORBA and Java's RMI spread.
With ordinary C code, the GPL attaches to derived works be
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 07:48:57PM -0800, Arandir wrote:
> But attempting to pass your license on to someone *else's* code is a very
> different thing. In the case of scripts, using CORBA objects, etc., you are
> attempting to dictate to someone *else* how they should license the code they
> wrot
On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 12:35:29AM -0800, Arandir wrote:
> > Philosophically, this is not very different than dictating to someone else
> > that they use my license when they include my code in their application.
> > We've just changed the linking technology slightly, and then made the
> > sam
On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 12:51:52AM -0800, Mark Wells wrote:
> Are shell scripts that use the GNU file utilities inherently copylefted?
> What's the difference between including GPL code in an application by
> linking to libraries and including it by running executables? I think
> that as the lin
What about adding a term like this to a copyright license:
A software program or library that has to be combined with an original
work in order to be fully functional forms a derived work of the original
even if they are not combined prior to use. Thus "runtime linked"
programs form der
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 10:22:03PM -0800, Arandir wrote:
> > A software program or library that has to be combined with an original
> > work in order to be fully functional forms a derived work of the original
> > even if they are not combined prior to use. Thus "runtime linked"
> > prog
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 12:45:34PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: "Scott Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A better example is Bruce Perens GPL'ing of the
> > public domain TIGER map database last year from the US Census Bureau.
>
> I am skating on thin ice on that one because it's a collect
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:14:36PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The problem is that copyright law does not recognize _reference_ as a form
> of derivation unique to software and hypertext. You can, however, write
> restrictions on reference into your own license.
But could I do this in an OSD co
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 05:39:44PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But I should make one correction to what I wrote before. I see now
> that "corba" was described as a method of linkage, in the message I
> responded to. I didn't notice that when I read it before. I don't
> think that corba is
I want to run a few licensing ideas by this list. I have a license with
a GPL style grant that boils down to a statement like this:
You may create derived works based on this software. Your derived
works must be licensed to the public under the terms of this license,
royalty free, a
A big problem with the GPL, and other OSS licenses, is that very few people
have standing to press a complaint. If someone violate's a GPL license,
only the author of the software has the right to press the complaint (or
so I think, and I am not a lawyer).
Worse, if there are multiple authors,
RMS may be correct in this case. I am not a lawyer. The counter-argument
that MSFT could ban people from making Windows software doesn't fly.
They CAN ban you from creating derivitive works based on their copyrighted
material, they have every right to do that. By encouraging people to
create th
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:51:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
> contract, where's the consideration?
There's lots of consideration:
-- fame from becoming well known as the author of a free software work
-- expectation that you
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:26:00PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> What breach? Bob is, from Trent's viewpoint, modifying Trent's
> work for his own use, which the GPL permits, using Alice's
> proprietary additions.
I wonder if the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act", with all its attendent
evil, would
I'm surprised there hasn't been more UCITA talk here. Awhile back this
article appeared from Stallman:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15948.html
He thinks that under UCITA free software licenses will be unable to
disclaim liability, because we are not shrinkwrap licenses. Only with
a shrink
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:50:29PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> As list members know, I scream bloody murder any time anyone brings up
> the word "use". Neithert the GPL nor the Copyright Act purport to
> limit use.
Can a copyright license demand that I stop using a work that I have acquired
lawf
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 01:21:08PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
> I do not know why, but people often think that contracts of
> adhesion are unlawful. They are not unless they violate public
> policy (unconscionability), which is a very high hurdle in most
> courts.
Is this a contract
I'm sure it's not, but someone please explain to me why not.
If the GPL is just a grant under copyright law, and not a contract, then
why can't I do the following:
-- I get a copy of a GPL'd work called "SSP" (some software program)
-- I am legally entitled to make private derivative copi
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:52:38PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The term "distribute" must be understood in the sense in which it is
> used in the Copyright Act. The term is not actually defined there, but
> is used thus: "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work
> to the public
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:56:54PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Mmmm, I think you're glossing over what "your copy" means here. I imagine
> that you're referring to the "first sale" doctrine, which restricts the
> ability of copyright holders to restrict resale of copies _that they
> sell_.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:39:10PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Remember that we are talking about the GPL here, not some random proprietary
> license. The GPL grants you permissions to take certain actions provided you
> meet certain conditions. The actions are copying, distributing, and
> makin
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:52:32PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that
> the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't
> that really the situation we are most concerned about?
Not only that, but I think it'
The more I read about copyright law, the more I become convinced that you
CAN restrict use in a pure copyright license. Whether you would want to
do this or not is controversial and may contravene the OSD anyway. But
it might be OK in some cases.
One way is that loading a computer program int
The GPL specifically says that it covers only matters relating to the
copying, distribution, and modification of the software. Everything
else is explicitly beyond the scope of the license.
Does that mean that the GPL's disclaimer does not apply to use of the
software?
The authors of GPL'd s
What does joint author doctrine mean for free software licenses? I
read this document:
http://www.macleoddixon.com/04public/Articles/04artpub.html#intell
which includes the following quotes:
The Copyright Act provides for joint authorship when a work is
prepared by more than one auth
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:11:15PM +0100, W . Yip wrote:
> 1) What is dynamic linking? Is it the 'ln' command in Linux for symbolic
> linking?
> 2) What is static linking? Is that a link to libraries on your hard disk?
Ian's answer was a good one, but I want to add some more points, and expla
There is an excellent collection of articles in PDF form here:
http://www.macleoddixon.com/04public/Articles/04ARTPUB.HTML#intell
I thought I would pass that along in case anyone here is interested in
reading about the ins and out of software licensing, copyright, shrinkwrap,
etc., as it app
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:57:34PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Running the program is not part of the copyright rights-bundle: when you
> acquire the program sans EULA-style license, you are an owner of that copy,
> and you can run it because that is analogous to reading a book that you own.
Usu
It's been a long time since I last posted a version of this license, and it
has changed a lot since then. I thought I would post it again and get some
comments from this list.
This license lives here:
http://shimari.com/SPL/
and will eventually be the primary license for Semiotek's software
Hi David,
Thanks for your comments! You are one of the people whose comments I was
really hoping to get when posting this license to the list.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:15:08PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> >From the features listed (I haven't read the license yet):
>
> > Hands the community
Rod I really appreciate that you are taking some time to review this.
Thank you!
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 06:42:57AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Be careful. Free software is not exactly public domain, which is what I
> think you have in mind. Only the copyright holder can go into cour
Hi Rod, thanks again for spending some time looking over my license.
I've attached a copy of my license interspersed with explanation to
this message, and below I answer the points you raised in your first
message to the list.
Thanks again--I really appreciate the help.
On Tue, Apr 04, 200
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 02:49:16PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of
> > our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation,
> > or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution
> > of our software shall
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:38:34PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> OK, I now understand what you are trying to do. I am concerned that these
> holes you want to knock in your copyleft may turn out to be extraordinarily
> large. A "consultant" or a "contractor" are terms with no legal signi
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:32:46PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject to your license, recipients may use the
> > work on one or more computers, and may create backup copies of it, but may
> > not otherwise copy, distr
Rod, thanks again for your help.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
> > Currently it's written like this:
> >
> > You may create a derivative work based on our software by combining a
> > complete unmodified copy of our software, or a compiled version
>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 01:05:39PM +0100, W . Yip wrote:
> The bottom line is that A cannot license what he does not own. And A
> certainly cannot own B's copyright to the derivative 'bits' if these indeed
> do subsist.
I think this is why the copyleft in the GPL is worded like this:
b) You
I have a revised version of the SPL, which incorporates some of
the comments Rod made on the last version. I've also been talking
to several people who wish to use my software in conjunction with
software under the Apache/BSD license, and so I have added a section
which I believe allows them to d
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:48:19AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Well, these points all point to the problem areas of using the word
> "depend." John's point seems to point out another troublesome matter that
> the GPL language avoided. In fact, there are a number of reasons why a
> speci
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> This version is much improved over the last. I think you will end up with
> something very useful. I will offer suggestions on some of the problem
> areas, but I like how you are developing your license.
Thank you.
> I w
Hi Rod,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 09:10:08PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I would also re-think using "free of charge." "Use Freely" is
> the FSF concept you might mean; recall, the cost of the software
> is not directly pertinent to the open source mission.
I dropped one use of "free
ATT license:
> "You represent and warrant that ... your Build Materials ... do not
> include any Software obtained under a license that conflicts with
> the obligations contained in this Agreement."
What are the terms of the warranty I am extending to AT&T, how much am I
liable for, and isn'
On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:24:36AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I agree that the ATT license is a bit legalistic and could be written in
> clearer language, but there is much to be learned from there draft. It is
> written so that a court will enforce it, and that is not a bad idea for o
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 07:03:31PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> If you want to release your own original code under any other license
> besides the GPL, then you can't include or link to someone else's
> GPLd code.
>
> But you still have the source code explaining the algorithm in great
> deta
>From the Open Motif license:
>The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
>and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
>which are themselves Open Source programs
They need to add a definition of "operating system" so that we can tel
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 08:20:46PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>QUESTION:
>Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source
>Guidelines?
>
>ANSWER:
>No. The Open Group Public License for Motif grants rights only to use
>the software on or with operating
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:09:40PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> > Even supposing that the license DOES restrict use to be only with open
> > source operating systems--how can you throw this license out, and not also
> > throw out the GPL?
>
> The GPL has specific provisions for operating syst
I'm not sure that such short disclaimers will work. Also, since you do not
require people to copy the license on to further works, you will get sued
by third parties who had no opportunity to read your disclaimers.
I am not a lawyer... but this seems TOO short.
Also the way you've written it,
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 02:06:41PM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Justin Wells wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that such short disclaimers will work.
>
> What is the smallest warranty disclaimer you have seen and think
> would work?
They're all pretty long. I
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 04:23:03PM -0500, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > Because disclaiming implicit warranties and all liabilities has to be
> > done explicitly and prominently. If the disclaimers are removed, then
> > it is neither explicit nor prominent--so the disclaimers are probably
>
On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:24:36AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> I agree that the ATT license is a bit legalistic and could be written in
> clearer language, but there is much to be learned from there draft.
OK. Well, I'm trying to learn from it, so I went through the AT&T license
and c
Can an opensource license include this phrase:
You must not use our software where there is any risk of death or
personal injury.
Lots of licenses say that, and the reason is that in many jurisdictions it
is not possible to disclaim liability for something that might kill or
seriously i
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 01:51:04PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> This software is not designed or intended for use in
> real-time or on-line control of nuclear, chemical,
> aviation, medical, or life-safety critical systems.
I'm going to adopt this language in my license fo
Refresher: what we're talking about is whether or not you can get away
with "do not use this software for life-safety systems" in an opensource
license (violating fields of endeavour) and if you don't disclaim
that, are you open to unlimited liability.
In my jurisdiction, and from my understan
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 01:11:10AM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> It's a private bug fix. In my opinion, it should be no one's business
> but the user. No harm to the author can possibly come of it.
Looking for thoughts on this:
How about releasing a modification to a GPL'd program which contains
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:41:55AM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
>
> > Looking for thoughts on this:
> >
> > How about releasing a modification to a GPL'd program which contains no
> > material from the original?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 05:33:45PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > For example, a GPL'd program contains a file called 'foo.c' among its
> > source code. I write a brand new 'foo.c' containing no material from the
> > original, but compatibly conforming to its API, and release that under
> > some p
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:35:37PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> The downside risk is, I suppose, the possibility that FSF might make GPL
> v. 3 do something radically permissive, e.g., consist of BSD terms.
I trust the current board of the FSF, etc., the real downside is the
possibility that in th
You might be able to have your cake and eat it too.
I see the value of wanting to be able to move to a new GPL without
having to consult each individual contributor to your code base.
I also see the fear in handing over to the FSF authority to relicense
the work that you've published.
A rea
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:08:17PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > A reasonable compromise might be:
> >
> > "or any later version which has been approved for use by XYZ"
>
> Problem being: that's not GPL compatible, with current versions of the
> GPL.
Why not? It's not adding any restri
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 08:56:23PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Perhaps you've never had to put together a Linux distribution, or an embedded
> Linux product. Consider the overhead this places on Debian, which has
> up to 5000 packages in a distribution.
This is a real issue.
I don't think ask
94 matches
Mail list logo
