Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?

Dennis Clarke wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail he

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

>Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code >into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code >licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will >ship in a Sun product. That's absolutely not the case. There's

[osol-discuss] NexentaOS: Introducing 'unstable' testing releases

To improve quality of development releases, we decided to introduce 'unstable' ISO releases which will be available with or without announcement over here: http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso Interested users/developers, please report bugs over here: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Bugs Tha

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

>These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source >software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When >they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in >Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time, I'm not sure what

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote On 02/02/07 07:22,: [b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank you.[/b] James C. McPherson wrote: Hi Erast, I *really* do not understand why you appear to be so concerned about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris community actually

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

James C. McPherson wrote On 02/02/07 05:57,: Having numbers just for sake of a "mine is larger than yours" style competition is a distraction from the real effort of making OpenSolaris better. Totally agree. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing li

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

James Carlson wrote On 02/02/07 05:34,: Peter Tribble writes: I think we need to advertise what projects or communities need help at any point in time, and for each community or project to identify key issues where extra hands would make a difference. At the moment it's very difficult even fo

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

Peter Tribble wrote On 02/02/07 05:23,: On 2/1/07, *Ben Rockwood* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just buried. I refer to "Bite Sized Bugs". ... The idea here is that if someone sits

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Peter Tribble wrote On 02/02/07 04:28,: On 2/1/07, *Erast Benson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: OK. I'll buy it. Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could someb

[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

I could accept every line of your post,but please don't forget that GPL is not freedom,its a little great community's extortion to a single developer.The choice to release modified source code should be a logical step without impositions because its more *convenient* for me and for open communit

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Erast Benson wrote On 02/02/07 03:51,: OK. I'll buy it. Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months? Oh, I don't think we're growing fast

Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?

Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/02/07 12:00,: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:09 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/01/07 11:08,: Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that made Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today. It's hard t

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev

XAM has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread, and I thought I would explain to folks what it is. XAM is an API to Fixed Content storage devices being worked on in the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA). Sun and other vendors are participating in the creation of this stand

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

On 1-Feb-07, at 10:26 PM, Stephen Lau wrote: here's my vote for a project name: Project Emancipation fantastic! :) I'll take it ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

+1 here's my vote for a project name: Project Emancipation cheers, steve On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:07:28PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: > Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution > without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a >

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

* Scott Tracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-01 22:07]: > So, let's talk through this so I can understand. How would you work > on a design doc with the community? Walk through the normal SDF > process on something you want to develop from start to finish in the > open. I don't think it's

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:06:34PM -0700, Scott Tracy wrote: >>1) I voiced earlier that I was disappointed at previous projects that >>didn't have source available either, and that I was going to be a jerk >>about it from now on. > >I don't want that to be a gating factor to get co

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:07 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: > Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution > without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a > traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely > unacc

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

On Friday 02 February 2007 01:07, John Sonnenschein wrote: > Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris > distribution without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What > this means is that a traditional distribution is entirely out of > the question. This is entirely unaccepta

[osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely unacceptable for a project which wishes to call itself "Open Source". I

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Stephen Lau wrote: On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Scott Tracy wrote: Having the source ready for publishing is not a requirement for setting up a project. I'm not looking for an endless debate here but there are many examples of Open Solaris Projects

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

disregard my previous post - I didn't realise that you were having issues changing it. email me your new email address and i'll update your account. cheers, steve On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:36:03PM -0800, S Destika wrote: > [b] To all - Please fix the forum s/w to allow me to change my email ID

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

.. and the first step in creating a conducive atmosphere for the community is having an email address that freaking works. snarkily yours, steve On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:45:57PM -0800, S Destika wrote: > >The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community > >cannot provide quality code

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Scott Tracy wrote: > Having the source ready for publishing is not a requirement for setting up a > project. I'm not looking for an endless debate here but there are many > examples of Open Solaris Projects that started without the source. iSNS is > ju

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

I think there is a consensus that this team should go talk to the Appliance and/or Storage communities and set up a Honeycomb project there. There is also a strong feeling that we should not set up a top level Honeycomb community (yet). That is: +1 on a Storage/Honeycomb or Appliance/Honeycomb

[osol-discuss] Re: SXCR Build 56 available

Cool - it seems after doing some digging that the nVidia 570 is indeed a "fake-RAID" device, i.e. the RAID is done in the driver. Apparently it's a similar chip to the one in the Sun X2100 M2, which is probably why there's a basic driver for it in Nevada ;-) No "hardware" RAID support though. :-

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

Having the source ready for publishing is not a requirement for setting up a project. I'm not looking for an endless debate here but there are many examples of Open Solaris Projects that started without the source. iSNS is just one such project, in fact it only has prototype code at the moment

[osol-discuss] DST and zoneinfo

What can be or is being done to remove timezone updates, to not require a libc upgrade, and not force a reboot? With every timezone and political boundry out there, jumping on the bandwagon, this is a real PITA for the current production versions of Solaris! _

[osol-discuss] Re: SXCR Build 56 available

> > Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at > > . > > > > - Derek > > > > -- > > Derek Cicero > > Program Manager > > Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division > > ___ > > opensolaris-discuss mailing list >

Maintaining standards - was Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?

Alan DuBoff wrote: > >This is really the biggest double edge sword OpenSolaris has faced as a >community. How can we get software putback, but how do we keep the high >standards that have been put in place. > >Even the customers were telling us they like the fact that Sun does scrutinize >and h

Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:09 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/01/07 11:08,: > > Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that > > made Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today. > > It's hard to critisize a process that has t

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: >>The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community >>cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I include >>both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". >> >> > >That is your view, sir. You completely, totally disregard the "community" >here. You are not the community. Co

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

> o As a leader, it is not a bad thing when people follow. > In fact, it is really hard to be a leader with no followers. > As long as we continue innovating, making OpenSolaris the > best in the world, it is OK if Apple, RedHat and others > want to emulate and adapt the things we have done. Afte

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

>The size of an OSS community is irrelevant if the community >cannot provide quality code to resolve issues. I include >both bugs *and* RFEs in "issues". That is your view, sir. You completely, totally disregard the "community" here. You are not the community. Community is a distinct, independent

[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[b] To all - Please fix the forum s/w to allow me to change my email ID and I promise I will do it next moment - please STOP complaining about it. I believe it should be fixed the right way - which benefits all - by fixing the forum software.[/b] > It's kind of interesting seeing a substantial

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote: > As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee > doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For > the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A > BSD license does

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:30 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote: > Alan DuBoff wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long > >> time"? > > > > Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenS

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

nice! I'm especially hoping to see review process to happen on mailing lists. I think mail patch attachments would be ideal, so community people could reply-to-all and post their comments with no-time spent. On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 17:34 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: > After the constitution is rat

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:19 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Alan DuBoff wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long > >> time"? > > > > Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenS

[osol-discuss] Re: SXCR Build 56 available

> Can you confirm the exact model of the M2N that you > have? Is it the one named "M2N-SLI Deluxe" on the > Asus site? Also, can you install Solaris onto an > nVidia RAID 1+0 or RAID 5 array? It's not clear in my > mind whether the nVidia RAID chip is a real hardware > RAID solution or does the RAI

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

Stephen Harpster wrote: > > > Alan Burlison wrote: >> >> >> And if OpenSolaris is endorsed by the FSF - so what? I personally >> think the FSF is mostly irrelevant to grass-roots open source people, >> and the people who are already dissing us will just claim that we >> bought out the FSF - you

[osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: G

> In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting > this > morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich > Green > (Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in > the > last few years about licenses and open source, > especially > with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris >

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

James C. McPherson wrote: Alan Burlison wrote: [snip Alan's excellent posting] +1 from me. James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org I'm not a

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A BSD license does not give you a free pass. For the Sun employee doing a pull, like

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

After the constitution is ratified, and the OGB is in place, and all the source is in Mercurial outside the firewall, that next "big" thing for OpenSolaris will be for the communities (a la the constitution) to figure out what the process is to becoming a contributor and under what rules code m

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"? Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't mean that it's a part of the project. When you down

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

Alan Burlison wrote: OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a community 10x or 100x as large as the one we have today. I really *don't* think the license is the main impediment we face, I think all the other issues that have been raised around ease of participation are *far* more impor

[osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: G

Yes,yes.A Community Free,Open and Independent,this could be the correct way to follow.Great Post Alan,Thank you! +1 Giacomo This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"? Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the s

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:52 pm, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: > > >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see > > > some of > > > > the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun > > is doing the

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"? Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the sources for OpenSolar

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

Alan Burlison wrote: [snip Alan's excellent posting] +1 from me. James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

John Plocher wrote: o When Rich asked whether anyone thought that licensing OpenSolaris under a version of the GPL would be a bad thing, I was the only one in the room of ~80 people to raise my hand (if even only tentatively). I'm not sure if this says more about me or my co-workers :-) I als

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On Thursday 01 February 2007 02:37 pm, James C. McPherson wrote: > S Destika wrote: > > [b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank > > you.[/b] > > If you cannot be bothered setting up a valid email > address for the mailing lists then perhaps you're > not really inter

What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting this morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich Green (Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in the last few years about licenses and open source, especially with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris thread. His respons

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thu 01 Feb 2007 at 03:52PM, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: > > >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some > > >of > > the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is > > doing the wrong thi

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include > >> the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. > > > >I would actually, an

[osol-discuss] Re: SXCR Build 56 available

Can you confirm the exact model of the M2N that you have? Is it the one named "M2N-SLI Deluxe" on the Asus site? Also, can you install Solaris onto an nVidia RAID 1+0 or RAID 5 array? Thanks Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ ope

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 09:55 am, Joerg Schilling wrote: > As long as I am the only person who informs people about the fact that > Debian is no longer "kosher", people will mobb me. If other people > understand the problem and inform others, it would be harder for Debian to > attack me a

[osol-discuss] Solaris 9 on a SVM RAID 1+0 root disk

I would like to configure my old E450 with 4 36GB drives as a RAID 1+0 array in SVM and boot from this. The array would be partitioned into 4: - root - alternate root for live upgrade - space for fssnap snapshots - Samba shares Is it possible to set up SVM with a RAID 1+0 array in Solaris 9 and

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote: > >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of > the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is > doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very > well w

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:49 am, Shawn Walker wrote: > I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know > *why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status list for > the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to > 3rd part

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

Alan DuBoff wrote: These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time, I'

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:40 am, Shawn Walker wrote: > Since they are closed, you can't fix bugs in them, port them to other > architectures, try to increase the performance of them, learn from them, > etc. I'm not convinced all the closed_bins are somehow perfect and free of > any bugs or pe

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 02:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed > > Java under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed > > more logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is > > t

Fortune cookies and community building (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

Trying to satisfy the Linux community is wrong-headed, the only community that's we need to satisfy is *our* community. Satisfying and existing are two completely different things, and unfortunately we must exist with them, Linux will not go away any time soon. Oh, we don't need to co-exist

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On 2/1/07, Bonnie Corwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Look at: http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005. I had seen that page before, but I didn't remember how to get back to it. How exactly does one navigate to that page

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: e1000g opensourced!

On 1/31/07, Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Shawn" == Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Shawn> Although puzzling enough it still has proprietary source code Shawn> headers in the diffs. An unfortunate artifact of how we "delete" files. (Or are there others besides e1000g_d

[osol-discuss] Exit

I want to exit of this group opensolaris-code. Thanks Kuene Robson ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Slow metadb and metastat on Build 55

Hello, I wasn't sure which forum to post to, so if there is a more appropriate one then please let me know. Earlier this week I installed Build 55 on my old E250 to test out ZFS. I setup a couple of zpools and used SVM to mirror my boot disks. Now I'm trying to run a LiveUpgrade to Build 56

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you friend does not understand much of licensing; one of the nice things of the CDDL is that it allows you to build things without having to go to the trouble to publish all your modifications. As the friend in question, I'm going to have to say that there ar

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: [b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank you.[/b] If you cannot be bothered setting up a valid email address for the mailing lists then perhaps you're not really interested in being part of the community. James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

S Destika wrote: [b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank you.[/b] James C. McPherson wrote: Hi Erast, I *really* do not understand why you appear to be so concerned about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris community actually is. Yes, the number of th

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

>[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank >you.[/b] How nice of you. S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I was about to send a repy but now I won't. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolari

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

>A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed Java >under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed more >logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is true, >but for those that know what is underneath the surface, know that

[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[b]Do not reply to me - I read this forum. My email ID is INVALID. Thank you.[/b] > James C. McPherson wrote: > > Hi Erast, > > I *really* do not understand why you appear to be > so concerned > > about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris > community actually > > is. > > > > Yes, the number o

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That's what they want you to think Alan; he'd be promoting it > rather than "Gnu/Hurd"; so we get all those followers (what, all five > of them) I don't want to be misled by a smoke screen though. > But if they don't say it in publ

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:57 pm, James C. McPherson wrote: > Yes, the number of those who would call themselves part of the > OpenSolaris community is probably not as large as Linux-adherents, > but who really cares? Why does it matter? Hear, hear! One thing is for certain...the Linux commu

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > >And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the > > >community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?! > > >That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

James C. McPherson wrote: > Erast Benson wrote: > >> unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers, >> but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not >> to late to fix that if at all possible/needed. > > > Hi Erast, > I *really* do not understand why yo

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

Erast Benson wrote: unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers, but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not to late to fix that if at all possible/needed. On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +, Peter Tribble wrote: On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PRO

[osol-discuss] Re: 3K man pages available

Hi Dennis and Rich, > > IANAL, but I think Dennis is OK republishing the man > pages: they're > published under the CDDL which specifically allows > this sort of thing. :-) Right, but the CDDL HEADER needs to appear with the content. While I totally love this presentation and want to say YES an

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers, but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not to late to fix that if at all possible/needed. On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +, Peter Tribble wrote: > On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

[osol-discuss] install & opensolaris regist.

My install went fine &have audio drivers now as well but I'm having difficulty with my OpenSolaris.org registration; a couple days in a row now when I try to login my username or password fails . Once I had to change the password to login another time I had to re-register with OpenSolaris.org. A

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

Peter Tribble writes: > I think we need to advertise what projects or communities need help at any > point in time, and for each community or project to identify key issues > where extra hands would make a difference. At the moment it's very difficult > even for those of us who've been involved wit

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

On 2/1/07, Ben Rockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just buried. I refer to "Bite Sized Bugs". ... The idea here is that if someone sits down on a Saturday afternoon and wants a challenge they pull up the list, pull one

[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed? In my opinion,yes And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least we will

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

We don't. I was being hypothetical. Shawn Walker wrote: OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only files --- those won't mix with CDDL. (The GPLv3 files already in OpenSolaris have the assembly exception which allows them to mix with incoming CDDL files. But if incoming GPLv3 file

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ben Rockwood wrote: > The idea here is that if someone sits down on a Saturday afternoon > and wants a challenge they pull up the list, pull one that looks tasty > and start working on a solution. Its got to be super easy for people > to get started this way. FWIW, I think th

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev

Lynn, all good points - but you're missing the point that Rich, Alan, Darren, and I have raised: Honeycomb is not yet ready to have source be published, or do open development. Given that, I will reiterate for the 3rd time: I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss, and develop the

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

Ben Rockwood wrote: >While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just >buried. I refer to "Bite Sized Bugs". > >I've pointed to this problem before: how do you find them? Bugs are (were) >flagged in the database but finding a list of these is difficult or >imposs

[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation

While that would be handy, we already have a good program in place, its just buried. I refer to "Bite Sized Bugs". I've pointed to this problem before: how do you find them? Bugs are (were) flagged in the database but finding a list of these is difficult or impossible. I've suggested in th

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the > >community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?! > >That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas > >are worthless, but insulting me as a person is

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:49 pm, Simon Phipps wrote: >> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote: >> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote: >> >> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead >> >> of that other kernel, and they would if

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK. I'll buy it. Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months? Could it be over-all number

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

My apologies. I meant no offense. Christopher Mahan wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL failure proofs? No; it only proves that i

Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]

>And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the >community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?! >That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas >are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're >guilty of i

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

> "sch" == Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ >> >> Probably ought to be linked to from the General FAQ >> (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/)...? sch> It already is, under the question "What source code does the sch> OpenSola

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source > > base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living > > daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's > > mos

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the >> CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. > >I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, >knowingly, without

  1   2   >