>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
>> >on
>> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
>> >accept it as an open source free license.
>>
>> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand
> >on
> >it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
> >accept it as an open source free license.
>
> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9
Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> > > talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> > > recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
...
> Not off-hand, although I'm sure he's probably blogged about any
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 18:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> > talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> > recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
>
> Do you
Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
> talking to the Debian guys about their CDDL issues, too (most
> recently at Debconf in Mexico, IIRC).
Do you know about what he was talking with Debian people and what
results he co
On 7 Aug 2006, at 13:46, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As long as I (partially together with Erast) remain the only person
who
tries to respond to these claims, Debian will be really successful
with this
kind of CDDL treatement.
Alvaro Lopez from our team in Ireland has certainly spent some time
On Monday 07 August 2006 03:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9 "preferred"
> licenses.
Right, but the OSI doesn't actually write open source software.
> I'm sorry; I don't follow. GPL is not an entity which allows are
> accepts; do you mean
I think that the CDDL vs other licensing thread should end here and
now; we're rehashing last year's discussion yet again.
If people feel that items are missing in the licensing FAQ, then
that should be addressed.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss maili
>If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on
>it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do
>accept it as an open source free license.
Why? OSI is what matters and OSI has made CDDL one of 9 "preferred" licenses.
>the execution th
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been no substantiated
> criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including CDDL'ed code.
If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on
it's own, and get a sta
>I agree, it would be extremely bad, but OTOH, if we're in a situation where we
>can't work with open source development, due to licensing, that is pretty bad
>in itself.
I think that lending credence to the handful of "CDDL is bad" distractors
is bad in and of itself. We should not do that.
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
> >
> >Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to
> > be changed, IMO.
>
> The only thing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
> >
> >Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
> >changed, IMO.
>
> The only thing that will satisfy Debian seems
>On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
>
>Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
>changed, IMO.
The only thing that will satisfy Debian seems like is the GPL;
we can't do that.
Chan
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Well, this is what these people don't care about :-(
Sun needs to address this, and if the CDDL is causing problem it needs to be
changed, IMO.
This needs to be an open and free project, one that is accepted by the rest of
the open sou
On Monday 07 August 2006 12:04 pm, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > I'd like to know what the problem is with CDDL, it is OSI approved.
>
>
> But it's not the GPL...
>
And that's a good thing, in some ways.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> I'd like to know what the problem is with CDDL, it is OSI approved.
But it's not the GPL...
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, my voice will be there as well now.
Good to hear.
> Not sure how much good it will do, but I want to understand the problem
> first.
> I certainly have my share of incidents with folks like Parens, but I don't
> think Bruce is involved with Debia
On Monday 07 August 2006 05:46 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as I (partially together with Erast) remain the only person who
> tries to respond to these claims, Debian will be really successful with
> this kind of CDDL treatement.
Well, my voice will be there as well now.
Not sure how much
"Eric Enright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally I avoid derailed threads such as this, but Shawn has a good
> point. If Debian is rejecting the CDDL, then I think this is
> something that should be made aware to the community. I follow
> several high traffic osol lists, and this is the firs
20 matches
Mail list logo
