On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:29:51AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Richard M. Stallman rms at gnu dot wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue
clauses,
which seem so controversial for debian.
We do not object to them.
St. Ignatius
Sven Luther wrote:
Bah, most people keep proprietary code in linux kernel modules, and this is
mostly ok and accepted. After all the kernel-module interface provides an as
good code separation as the kenrel-userland interface does, at least if said
modules do not use GPLed callbacks in the
You brought up a very interesting point. Since on a file-by-file basis, CDDL
is essentially the s
ame as GPL, I am now wondering whether it might a good idea (at least for
sanity purposes) to separ
ate the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel into two parts: the GPL part and the
binary-only part.
Casper H. Dik wrote:
I think Roy is merely pointing out that OpenSolaris should be under
GPL discussions and there derivatives (CDDL is better than GPL,
GPL is better than CDDL, GPL is not free, CDDL is not free)
are pointless and have no place on opensolaris-discuss because the
license
I think this forum is totally screwed up. I posted something, which had been
previewed OK, but then it fails to show the portion that contained quoted text.
I have no interest to re-post my original message.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 09:33, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Casper H. Dik wrote:
I think Roy is merely pointing out that OpenSolaris should be under
GPL discussions and there derivatives (CDDL is better than GPL,
GPL is better than CDDL, GPL is not free, CDDL is not free)
are pointless and have no
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it is a well defined API for third party modules. and you are supposed
to follow the rules, or expect random breakage all over. This is the same on
any kernel out there
it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is
GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their
software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by
opensolaris. opensolaris would benefit greatly from having a
michael wolfe wrote:
it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is
GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their
software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by
opensolaris.
I cannot agree with
Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
modified to be GPL compatible.
If you can find one (i.e., GPL compatible), you really should patent it. :-)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
