On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Was there a footnote [3] that I missed ?
Yes, I had deleted it. But forgot to remove the reference to the
footnote. :)
--paulj
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Actually this was directed at Paul but you got caught in the fray Simon.
>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 14:20, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
>>
>> e) The FSFs' statement about compatibility between CDDL and GPL is
>> their
>>opinion, and they are entitled to it. Note that they have rather
>>eminent legal
On Sep 27, 2006, at 14:20, Paul Jakma wrote:
I do speak for my employer in this instance & I agree with all this.
S.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or
is this
all simply more FUD that no one responds to ?
W
Paul Jakma wrote:
c) The FSF /always/ recommends that the GPL be used over other free
software licences. I'm not sure what else you'd expect, it's their
default position. Hardly FUD.
They even do this against their own LGPL - it's simply their philosophy
of opening as much software as pos
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or is this
all simply more FUD that no one responds to ?
Well, is it FUD?
Let's look at the facts:
a) RMS has stated the CDDL is an "ethical licence".
b) The CDDL is listed as *a free
