I appreciate all the help and feedback, but I think I'll stop my part in
discussing the whole GPL and GNOME thing further. It is really opening up a can
of worms I did not originally intend to open at all. I simply had a question
that sparked out of 100% curiosity. Thank you everyone for your ti
- It is a common belief that source and software should be open and shared
amongst people without restrictions.-
Source and software has more to do with machine components than sharing
people.If your looking for e-com you need less if you need e-vision you need
more. Today your desktop could se
There's a lot of mystery here surrounding my reasoning around not supporting
the GNU General Public License. I don't blame anyone for that. Firstly, what is
the definition of open source?
- It is a common belief that source and software should be open and shared
amongst people without restrict
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Nikola M wrote:
> Therefore i see your question as mostly open source unfriendly in general.
>
> You never explained why you don`t like GPLed software , I am only
> guessing it might have something to do with your intentions to misuse
> free software.
Some of us a
Andrew Greimann wrote:
> say, to the GPL, how can the same be done to respin GNOME from the GPL? We're
> talking possibly recompiling and rebuilding GNOME into
>
Why would anyone want _not_ to use GPL??
It is in nature of free software to have a license that assures its
existence, not allowin
Not to be contrary, and I'll stop this thread afterwards, but that's ONE
lawyer's OPINION. I see no case law where what we're talking about has
been decided under the collective work doctrine about license changing.
Most software indeed falls under the "collective work" concept these
days (an
Before **completely** quitting discussing OpenSolaris & GNOME here, I might add
someone could install a shell to go on top of GNOME once logged in (though it'd
take more startup time), then run OpenSolaris. Installing an alternative
bootloader might do the trick for not using GRUB at startup. Ju
Brian Utterback wrote:
> A little googling turns up the paper to which Joerg is referring:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing
Thank you for this hint! Sometimes it is important to use the right search
terms.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg S
A little googling turns up the paper to which Joerg is referring:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing
Apparently under U.S. law, changing the license is easier than was once
thought. It hinges on whether the code is considered a "joint work" or a
"collective work", and on whethe
Andrew:
Therefore, the second question then (and it would greatly lighten any
OpenSolaris distros) is whether Fluxbox is supported on the platform over GNOME?
Probably the first step in getting Fluxbox integrated and supported into
OpenSolaris would be for someone to drive it through the ARC
The big change that I have seen since Oracle took over is the TM OS is no
longer released as an unknown hostname. It is opensolaris supported or not.It
won't be until Oracle releases its new trademark named copy with its apparent
licensed support fee that determines how much of the community it
OK I'd better wrap this discussion up before taking up anyone else's time
on the forum. I understand there are questions pertaining to hardware or just
plainly more important questions than these.
Apparently, as much as I like using OpenSolaris, without the ability to
completely change the
I was thinking of getting feedback on window managers and licensing, but I
wasn't thinking so many threads would accumulate! :-) This is getting
interesting
Getting back to an original comment--apparently, yes, OpenSolaris does indeed
use the GRUB bootloader--I noted that upon first using O
Erik Trimble wrote:
> > Ask Simon Phipps He told me that there is a paper from Eric Raymonds
> > wife
> > (who is a lawyer) that confirms my statement.
> >
> > The background in the European law is that a minor contributor does not get
> > the right to control the "way of marketing" and the
On 6/7/2010 2:53 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
In the European Copyright law as well as in the US Copyright law, you need
to have a decsion that get's a majority of the contribution (not from lines
but from Copyright relevant creation) and all contribut
Erik Trimble wrote:
> > I cannot speak for Apache and Mozilla or OpenJDK, but the FSF uses a
> > contract template that is in conflict with the European Copyright law
> > and causes the contract to become void.
> >
> > Jörg
>
> That's interesting. Nice to know. Does the legal concept of
> "sev
Erik Trimble wrote:
> > In the European Copyright law as well as in the US Copyright law, you need
> > to have a decsion that get's a majority of the contribution (not from lines
> > but from Copyright relevant creation) and all contributors with more than
> > aprox. 5% contributions need to vote
On 6/7/2010 2:08 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
Frankly, this is one of the biggest arguments in favor of assigning
copyright to some single entity for all contributions to a project. It's
what allows multi-licensing of an entire codebase. IHNSHO, anyon
On 6/7/2010 2:05 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
John Plocher wrote:
Changing a license is amazingly simple in theory, yet complex enough
in practice to be nearly impossible:
The owners of the current copyright simply need to decide to relicense
or dual license their code u
Erik Trimble wrote:
> Frankly, this is one of the biggest arguments in favor of assigning
> copyright to some single entity for all contributions to a project. It's
> what allows multi-licensing of an entire codebase. IHNSHO, anyone
> running a large OpenSource project should /always/ insist
John Plocher wrote:
> Changing a license is amazingly simple in theory, yet complex enough
> in practice to be nearly impossible:
>
> The owners of the current copyright simply need to decide to relicense
> or dual license their code under a new license.
>
> Unfortunately, the tens of thousands o
Andrew Greimann wrote:
> (I'd really prefer a desktop manager that was not GPLed--namely Fluxbox,
> under the MIT.) Thanks.
Does it really matter? You can't eliminate GPL software from the system.
(Have you tried booting OpenSolaris on x86 without grub?)
--
-Alan Coopersmith-a
On 6/6/2010 11:22 PM, Andrew Greimann wrote:
New threads popped up while replying to another thread...
However, compiling and putting Fluxbox on OpenSolaris then would be the viable
option, since the licensing for GNOME cannot be changed. (I don't think I'd
want to convince anyone to change GN
New threads popped up while replying to another thread...
However, compiling and putting Fluxbox on OpenSolaris then would be the viable
option, since the licensing for GNOME cannot be changed. (I don't think I'd
want to convince anyone to change GNOME either.) :)
--
This message posted from op
Thanks. This is what I envisioned would have been the answer to this question
before even asked. I have used both GNOME and KDE--aware a community fuels it's
popularity and license, and considering the fact GNOME is made not only for
OpenSolaris, but for Linux and Unix-like systems as well, unde
Frankly, this is one of the biggest arguments in favor of assigning
copyright to some single entity for all contributions to a project. It's
what allows multi-licensing of an entire codebase. IHNSHO, anyone
running a large OpenSource project should /always/ insist on copyright
assignment. *Who
Andrew Greimann wrote:
> Out of curiousity, is it possible to convert the GPL-licensed GNOME on
> OpenSolaris to the CDDL or MIT licenses?
You would have to get every person & corporation owning copyright in every GNOME
module to agree to that, the odds of which are staggeringly high against you,
Changing a license is amazingly simple in theory, yet complex enough
in practice to be nearly impossible:
The owners of the current copyright simply need to decide to relicense
or dual license their code under a new license.
Unfortunately, the tens of thousands of people who have contributed to
G
Out of curiousity, is it possible to convert the GPL-licensed GNOME on
OpenSolaris to the CDDL or MIT licenses? We are NOT talking of LGPL here.
I'm well aware that any code or really 'software' deemed "compatible" with the
GPL underneath another license "compatible" becomes GPL or at least, GPL
29 matches
Mail list logo
