LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: Robin Axelsson gu99r...@student.chalmers.se
To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?
Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:50 pm
I think fears that this might be a ruse on Oracle's side to put
OI
On 12/26/11 08:21, Nikola M wrote:
I know there must be reluctance of accepting that Solaris11 released
code is truly under CDDL (for parts that are) .
But under what license could it be, since Solaris11 is derived code from
CDDL-licensed Opensolaris?
Under the new license Oracle chose to
Best course of action is to ignore it, don't look at it, and especially
don't download it.
What kind of hysteria is this I have no idea! Even if you look at the
code and use it, how can one prove that you have actually stolen code?
There are many cases where people working independently
On 12/26/11 14:15, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
(Many people took contact with
them, they know that the code is out, but they are not acting against it).
Do not make the same mistake as the Ars headline and confuse not talking to
you about it as not caring about it or not doing anything about it.
On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Joshua M. Clulow wrote:
You can pretty much guarantee that the only time this will ever be publicly
addressed, if indeed it ever is at all, will be in the form of legal
proceedings.
Against who/m? Torrent users/sites? Mailing lists? Open source
projects? There's
On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:15 AM, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote:
Best course of action is to ignore it, don't look at it, and especially
don't download it.
What kind of hysteria is this I have no idea! Even if you look at the
code and use it, how can one prove that you have actually stolen
Yes, just take a look at the legal suit against Google. It all started from
the open-source Android project. And if you're talking about ROI, and this
involves Google, there's all reasons for Oracle to go for it.
So, I'd imagine another Google (or some monster company with deep pockets)
using
On 27 December 2011 21:11, Daniel Kho daniel@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm pretty sure Oracle knows this by now. If they don't issue a press
release (or an order, etc.) on this anytime soon, then I smell fish. It
could very well be that it is part of Oracle's official strategy to trap
Frankly, I don't see why anybody would even be tempted to look at the
new code. Most of the people who actually worked on the features that
made Solaris unique have moved to companies within the OI/Illumos
ecosystem. Various reports by news sites seem to indicate that there's
not much exciting in
Open Indiana wrote:
It's like sneezing in a dark-room, now Oracle can wait outside to see who
all catched the flue.
;-)
Maybe it is truly CDDL for the parts marked like that,
besides, why would Oracle keep CDDL headers if it is not CDDL anymore?
Also CDDL is saying derived work holds the same
There is no way of knowing if the source has been altered or tampered with.
Short of a cryptographically signed release or a statement from oracle, best
and safest option is to ignore it and stay far far away from the code.
Jamon
Nikola M minik...@gmail.com wrote:
Open Indiana wrote:
It's
Jamon Camisso wrote:
There is no way of knowing if the source has been altered or tampered with.
Short of a cryptographically signed release or a statement from oracle, best
and safest option is to ignore it and stay far far away from the code.
There is of course huge amount of work needed
Ummm, Larry has been watching epic movies again! It is a legal Trojan
horse!... how innovative!; they drop their own trade secrets marked as CDDL
and wait for the unaware computer enthusiast to use it and sue him badly!
He is truly worst than Gargamel...
Well the only option he had to prevent
On 12/26/2011 07:31 AM, Nikola M wrote:
Maybe it is truly CDDL for the parts marked like that,
besides, why would Oracle keep CDDL headers if it is not CDDL anymore?
It's a trap that smells much worse than SCO's attempt to kill Linux via
lawsuit. Stay away from it. You wouldn't want
Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 12/26/2011 07:31 AM, Nikola M wrote:
Maybe it is truly CDDL for the parts marked like that,
besides, why would Oracle keep CDDL headers if it is not CDDL anymore?
It's a trap that smells much worse than SCO's attempt to kill Linux via
lawsuit. Stay away from it.
at it, and especially don't
download it.
Greg
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: Nikola M minik...@gmail.com
To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?
Date: Mon, Dec 26
at it, and especially
don't download it.
Greg
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: Nikola M minik...@gmail.com
To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked
-
From: Nikola Mminik...@gmail.com
To: Discussion list for OpenIndianaopenindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?
Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 12:28 pm
Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 12/26/2011 07:31 AM, Nikola M wrote:
Maybe it is truly CDDL
again.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: Robin Axelsson gu99r...@student.chalmers.se
To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?
Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 3:50 pm
I think fears that this might
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
True, if anyone posts a single comment or thought about the code, all of
Oracle will hunt down this list
and all its members! Even thinking about looking at that source code, is
thought crime! Beware!
That's either tongue in cheek or more
That was a good article, tnks!
I remember those estrange days when nothing was said about what happened to
Opensolaris, somehow the silence reminds me of WWII; It makes more
psychological damage to make someone disappear without telling a word, than
executing him in public. I wonder if this thing
My personal theory is the whole matter is being kept as quiet as
possible by Oracle so that Larry can maintain the element of surprise
when he attack the leaker's home with his MiG.
___
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
Roy, I couldn't agree more...
You all deserve a penance:
Go back home and tell one hundred holy Larrys!
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net
wrote:
This seems potentially bad all the way around to me. Hopefully this
turns out to be a real, officially
On 20/12/2011 6:29 a.m., Gregory Youngblood wrote:
This seems potentially bad all the way around to me. Hopefully this turns out
to be a real, officially blessed release and not a leak.
It doesn't look to be official, since it does contain some closed source
code but is mostly CDDL and even
On 20/12/2011 6:29 a.m., Gregory Youngblood wrote:
This seems potentially bad all the way around to me. Hopefully this
turns out to be a real, officially blessed release and not a leak.
It doesn't look to be official, since it does contain some closed source
code but is mostly CDDL and even
On Dec 20, 2011, LinuxBSDos.com wrote:
Sounds like you have looked at the code. If true, please do not post anything
about it here
Yeah, no spoilers, man. The release notes Oracle fora posters
already told us that JumpStart, lu, nwam, SMC, wcadmin, Xsun, CDE, and
sun4u architecture have all
On 12/21/11 12:43 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The most they can do is politely asking not to use it.
Am I wrong?
Yes. This is Oracle we're talking about here. I can't quite believe
anyone is even seriously contemplating this.
--
Dave Koelmeyer
http://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 08:24 PM, Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
On 12/21/11 12:43 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The most they can do is politely asking not to use it.
Am I wrong?
Yes. This is Larry we're talking about here. I can't quite believe
anyone is even seriously contemplating risking
On 2011-12-20 13:24, Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
On 12/21/11 12:43 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The most they can do is politely asking not to use it.
Am I wrong?
Yes. This is Oracle we're talking about here. I can't quite believe
anyone is even seriously contemplating this.
Perhaps it is best
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:13, Robin Axelsson
gu99r...@student.chalmers.se wrote:
Perhaps it is best to wait and see what the people at Oracle will say or do.
Well, with the Friday the 13th memo, there were no comments from
Oracle afterwards...
--
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Jeppe Toustrup
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 15:13 +0100, Robin Axelsson wrote:
On 2011-12-20 13:24, Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
On 12/21/11 12:43 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The most they can do is politely asking not to use it.
Am I wrong?
Yes. This is Oracle we're talking about here. I can't quite believe
On 12/20/11 08:13 AM, Robin Axelsson wrote:
On 2011-12-20 13:24, Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
On 12/21/11 12:43 AM, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The most they can do is politely asking not to use it.
Am I wrong?
Yes. This is Oracle we're talking about here. I can't quite believe
anyone is even
On 12/20/11 03:43, Gabriel de la Cruz wrote:
The code comes together with legal guidelines how to use it... as long
as those guidelines are followed, there is nothing wrong about it.
If I take something you wrote and post it without your permission under a
license you didn't approve it to be
And on the heels of my cynicism is useful information from Alan.
I'd just like to apologize if my comments offended or annoyed anyone
working at Oracle, still doing doing Good Things. My cynicism and
frustration wasn't meant to be directed at them, but at the Oracle
organization's decisions
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?65756-Solaris-11-source-code-leaked
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oracle-Solaris-11-Kernel-Source-Leaked-241597.shtml
Has this been leaked? do we want to try to look/keep well clear in
order to see where ZFS changes are made with encryption, to enable
On 19.12.11. 15:38, Jonathan Adams wrote:
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?65756-Solaris-11-source-code-leaked
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oracle-Solaris-11-Kernel-Source-Leaked-241597.shtml
Has this been leaked? do we want to try to look/keep well clear in
order to see where ZFS
according to the reports I listed, the general consensus is that it's
licensed under CDDL ... but I haven't looked at it to confirm.
Jon
On 19 December 2011 15:53, Chris Ridd chrisr...@mac.com wrote:
On 19 Dec 2011, at 14:38, Jonathan Adams wrote:
I'm assuming that a disgruntled employee made this dump out of
frustration with the current situation. Still, given that the CDDL
licenses on most files are almost certainly simply leftovers from the
Sun era, the code is useless to OpenIndiana and not legally binding.
I'd even go as far as to say
it wouldn't need to be a disgruntled Oracle employee, they still deal
with Intel, and other manufacturers ... just needs to be someone with
access to the code and no emotional ties to Oracle.
If code is tagged with the CDDL, can that code not be CDDL? if so a
third party with no involvement, or
This seems potentially bad all the way around to me. Hopefully this turns out
to be a real, officially blessed release and not a leak.
Given the question as to the origin of this code drop, and the potential huge
downside if it turns out to be a leak and not an official code drop, then I
would
: Gregory Youngblood greg...@youngblood.me
To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 12:29:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?
This seems potentially bad all the way around to me. Hopefully this turns
On 12/19/11 07:53, Chris Ridd wrote:
But what if the changed code in the leaked code was licensed under the CDDL.
Would that make it OK to reuse outside of Oracle?
You're asking for legal advice. Any legal advice you get on this list
is worth less than what you paid for it.
42 matches
Mail list logo
