Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: if you like milk, don't kill the cow
Unless the cow is sick and produce unusable sour milk or whatever, and there
is plenty of other sane ones :)
The more I read from you on this topic, the more I get the impression that
you don't
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry but it seems that you did not understand the problem at all.
Well, you could use wording which are quite agressive, as was already the case
in the GPL vs bSD discussion or in the Linux vs OpenSolaris post. I think you
are too deeply
Again moving to gnu-sol, please follow-up there.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:19:06AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: if you like milk, don't kill the cow
Unless the cow is sick and produce unusable sour milk or whatever, and there
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: if you like milk, don't kill the cow
Unless the cow is sick and produce unusable sour milk or whatever, and
there
is plenty of other sane ones :)
The more I read from you on this topic, the more I get the impression
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words: if you like milk, don't kill the cow
Unless the cow is sick and produce unusable sour milk or whatever, and
there
is plenty of other sane ones :)
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that you are discrediting the Debian project by
repeating unproven claims of a single person that once did come up with
anti-social demands on Debian legal.
See my other email. And if you are curious, i think the latest thread
Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg, we are sad to see you react in this way to this discussion -
after all that is what it is.
I am sorry, but this thread turned into a useless discussion that I am
trying to avoid.
We actually think Sven is making some very
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:21:14AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that you are discrediting the Debian project by
repeating unproven claims of a single person that once did come up with
anti-social demands on Debian legal.
See my
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just proved that it's you who is uninformed
You constantly repeat this single text from Debian Legal, but you avoid
to do some research on the background.
This single text ? I gave you a link to a 100+ email thread with many
participants,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, well, i propose we stop the hostilities, i investigate the issue, and see
what the debian ftp-masters have to say about it, and then will post my
conclusions. I hope then you will take them with an open mind :)
I hope you used the word hostilities by
Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg, we are sad to see you react in this way to this discussion -
after all that is what it is.
We actually think Sven is making some very important points about how
developers feel about their contributions being used for different
He has two basic approaches:
- Telling people that you are not allowed to run GPLd software
on top of non-GPL operating systems or to ship both together
on a single medium.
If this was true, most operating systems (including all Linux
distributions I am aware
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:07:37PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg, we are sad to see you react in this way to this discussion -
after all that is what it is.
We actually think Sven is making some very important points about
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:20:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He has two basic approaches:
-Telling people that you are not allowed to run GPLd software
on top of non-GPL operating systems or to ship both together
on a single medium.
If this was true, most
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me add another statement
You cannot leave it, can you ?
Aha you are again being personal?
He has two basic approaches:
- Telling people that you are not allowed to run GPLd software
on top of non-GPL operating systems or to ship
You cannot link GPLed software with GPL-incompatible system libraries, if you
distribute said software together with the system libraries. This has been
known for age, and Sun used to distribute gcc on a separate CD back then.
The exact quote from the GPL is (End of clause QPL 3) :
However,
Believe me, the GPL has been written many year ago, and a huge amount of
people have been involved with it since then and scrutinized it in every neat
details, and there are little doubt left about those issues.
Yet you seem to be very confused:
To direct you to the GPL FAQ for more detail :
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:20:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He has two basic approaches:
-Telling people that you are not allowed to run GPLd software
on top of non-GPL operating systems or to ship both together
on a single medium.
If this was true, most
How quickly we forget...
Many parts of what we call the Berkeley Software Distribution was written
or maintained by people who were or became Sun employees, and much of what
was delivered in SunOS 3.x (and somewhat in 4.x) was contributed directly
back into the BSD4.1/4.2 sources. At that point
How quickly we forget...
Many parts of what we call the Berkeley Software Distribution was written
or maintained by people who were or became Sun employees, and much of what
was delivered in SunOS 3.x (and somewhat in 4.x) was contributed directly
back into the BSD4.1/4.2 sources. At that point
Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
I don't think so. The LGPL is compatible with almost all kinds
of provisions; that's what it was designed for.
___
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.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
I don't see how, given that the LGPL is compatible to proprietary
non-(open source/free)-software. From what I see the LGPL is
compatible with just abou any license...
--
Shawn Walker,
The truth is that the dominant open source/free software/whatever you name it
community is based on GPLed programs, and thus it is their opinion that an
GPL-compatible OpenSolaris makes more sense for everyone involved, but they
can only ask you to do it, and point you out the advantages of it in
Well, remember the system library excpetion, which allowed sun to distribute
the gcc toolchain in the past, provided it is not on the same CD media as the
OS itself. This is a bit inconvenient and means you have to distribute gcc and
stuff from a separate source, but still works just fine for
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:55:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
to
On Sep 7, 2005, at 08:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:30:25PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And from the point of the discussion, as long as the license
is not GPL people will bicker and as such the situation will
not change on the mailing list either so it's best to not
spend much time discussing this.
Don't think
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:57:47AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Why?
Please note that I did send a description on why I believe that
even GPL'd filesystems and other modules may be used in OpenSolaris
to RMS as a part of this duiscussion.
He, i would really be interested in knowing about
Don't think so, the real point is not GPLing opensolaris, but making the CDDL
LGPL compatible, or at least the userland part of OpenSolaris, which would
allow for a nice intermingling of both LGPLed and CDDL userland, GPL
compatibility would be nice too, but less important, and maybe more
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:10:08PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sep 7, 2005, at 13:46, Sven Luther wrote:
Now, i believe the OpenSolaris kernel itself is not a problem, since
it is
devoid of any GPL/LGPLed code (am i right there ?). If this where not
the
case, OpenSolaris would be
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:13:24PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
I propose we take this discussion over to the GNU/Solaris forum here on
OpenSolaris.org - do join me there :-)
Ok, is there a web accessible archive of it ? Some way i can point that to
debian-legal for comments for example ?
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=32On 9/8/05, Sven Luther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:13:24PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
I propose we take this discussion over to the GNU/Solaris forum here on OpenSolaris.org - do join me there :-)Ok, is there a web
Now, my opinion is that the choice-of-venue clause problem should be cut in
two, and leave the choice-of-venue to the defendant, as seems to be the
default in international contract law, but it would be nice to have real legal
advice on this. This would be akin to old-time duels, where the
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, as it would be called, having a OpenSolaris kernel and
a GNU userland is not concerned by the GPL incompatibility of the CDDL, but
solely on the non-freeness of the CDDL, which seems to involve right now the
controversial
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the debian mirror operators in insert random country can be sued by
Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and have to go to the
expense to go to the Sun chosen court.
And the opposite is true for the author. Does not the
On Sep 7, 2005, at 16:40, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:40:18AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, as it would be called, having a OpenSolaris
kernel and
a GNU userland is not concerned by the GPL incompatibility of the
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:53:59AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the debian mirror operators in insert random country can be sued by
Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and have to go to the
expense to go to the Sun chosen
One of the debian mirror operators in insert random country can be sued by
Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and have to go to the
expense to go to the Sun chosen court.
So what alternative is there?
Author choses venue (which is what it is now)
Fixed venue
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:12:03AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] added to dlist, in an attempt to
move the this thread there.]
One of the debian mirror operators in insert random country can be sued by
Sun over the distribution of
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
And how is that different to the license explictely stating that the venue
is is Santa Clara and tough uck if you live in Outer Mongolia.
Exact, which is why choice-of-venue clause in licences are to be shuned, and
Huh? I don't see how you could
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:35:19AM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
As Casper said, I think you'll find that most often, it is the person
who starts the suit that gets to pick venue.
Take the example of DVD-jon case then, do you really think they would have
sued him in his home country if they could
The only thing that a choice-of-venue of this kind allows is to facilitate the
licensor to sue random people all over.
No; choice venue means that the licensor can only be sued on his
terms on his home turf. That is because person *suing* has choice
of venue.
So if the licensor wants to sue,
On Sep 7, 2005, at 17:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that a choice-of-venue of this kind allows is to
facilitate the
licensor to sue random people all over.
No; choice venue means that the licensor can only be sued on his
terms on his home turf. That is because person *suing*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure why the choice of venue is such a big issue: someone will
chose the venue and whether you do it at the time of writing the
license or at a later point in time is irrelevant.
It's a fix to the MPL which always uses Santa Clara (I think) which is
rather
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I, as a resident of BC, Canada, release some code under the CDDL, the
last
thing I want to do is travel to God knows where (e.g., California) to
protect
my rights in a court of law. A better example would be Casper, who lives in
the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it isn't a risk for an author?
Well, whatever, it is a risk for the author to chose, as it is a risk the
debian ftp-masters, in charge of ensuring that, chose not to take.
If Debian is trying to take away risks for Debian and Debian operators,
they
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] added to dlist, in an attempt to
move the this thread there.]
One of the debian mirror operators in insert random country can be sued by
Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the issue I understood Debian to have with CDDL. I
understood the concern some individuals expressed to be about the fact
that the choice of law and venue was parameterised, allowing a user of
CDDL to select law and venue on a use-by-use
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Requiring the license to be written in a way that it favors those who break
the license and in a way that discriminates those who write the software
looks more than strange.
Bah, you are making moral judgements depending on your own smallish vision
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:11:19PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Provide you don't ship them as part of your OS. This was already the case
with
gcc on Solaris.
Define ship as part of the OS; gcc and other GPL'ed stuff ships on
On Sep 7, 2005, at 4:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I find strident and over-assertive language distressing whichever
party is using it.
Irrelevant discussion on an open source project mailing list is
a cancer. It must be cut out to prevent those of us with high
email loads from unsubscribing.
Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ?
Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the
FSF to do that.
That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of
the
kind that doesn't cause derivative work
On 9/8/05, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, as traffic increases on discuss -- no matter what the issuehappens to be -- people comment to me that they can't keep up, they want
to unsubscribe, and that the list is not focused. So, I'm not sure whatto make of it. One person's
Thanks for your reply, :)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:41:47PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ?
Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the
FSF to do that.
Ok, i look forward to it, i will again
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is that? It's clear that the BSD license is more free than the
GPL license because you can do more with it; it almost looks like you're
afraid soemone might steal free code.
I feel compelled to point out that this is exactly what Sun did with the older
BSD UNIX
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:40:04PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not the issue I understood Debian to have with CDDL. I
understood the concern some individuals expressed to be about the fact
that the choice of law and venue was
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:19:36PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I, as a resident of BC, Canada, release some code under the CDDL, the
last
thing I want to do is travel to God knows where (e.g., California) to
protect
my rights in a court
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:48:53PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Requiring the license to be written in a way that it favors those who
break
the license and in a way that discriminates those who write the software
looks more than strange.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:20:26PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
So, i guess it is up to interpretation of accompanies the executable, but
having it on the same DVD certainly can be interpreted as accompanies the
executable.
And that's exactly what I
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
Nobody was
On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I
suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:54:23AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant,
Shawn Walker wrote:
FSF's comments about CDDL:
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU
GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the
CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We
Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered
But getting back to the main point: I don't think we're ever going
to agree on SW licensing philosophy, but I don't think there's any
way that OpenSolaris can be icensed under the GPL. The need and/or
desire to link with 3rd party code that may or may not be open source
Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting.
Indeed, the
cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case
for
compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses.
I agree. Solaris as free software will be much more useful if they
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered ethical ?
The GNU GPL is meant as a free software
---BeginMessage---
It would be really nice if it was possible for a OSS developer to use code
from any of the OSI aproved licenses.
The GPL is designed to be a free software license, and to serve the
goals of the free software movement: protecting users' freedom. It
was not designed to
---BeginMessage---
But getting back to the main point: I don't think we're ever going
to agree on SW licensing philosophy, but I don't think there's any
way that OpenSolaris can be icensed under the GPL. The need and/or
desire to link with 3rd party code that may or may not be
---BeginMessage---
My understanding is that linking against system libraries or loading
dynamic objects (e.g. via dlopen()) does not create a derived work.
That depends on the details.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.
---End Message---
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
*BSD and Linux don't belong in the same list, because *BSD are
operating systems. Linux, however, is just a kernel. If you're
thinking of the operating system in which Linux is used, then what
you've said is an understatement. That system is not just cooperating
with
--- W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
*BSD and Linux don't belong in the same list,
because *BSD are
operating systems. Linux, however, is just a
kernel. If you're
thinking of the operating system in which Linux is
used, then what
you've said is an
ken mays wrote:
...
I hope this GPL/CDDL thing doesn't kill off a nice
idea like OpenSolaris before it really gets out the
gate. I hope we can end this I hate Linux mindset
since Linux help launch the open source movement and
got GNU tools/source code to many people. Now that we
have more
--- James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ken mays wrote:
...
I hope this GPL/CDDL thing doesn't kill off a nice
idea like OpenSolaris before it really gets out
the
gate. I hope we can end this I hate Linux
mindset
since Linux help launch the open source movement
and
got
---BeginMessage---
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered ethical ?
The GNU GPL is meant as a
On 8/19/05, Robert W. Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
modified to be GPL compatible.
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
modified
On 8/19/05, W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Lick -- 黎建溥 wrote
You are right though that there
hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
with the CDDL though.
Since CDDL is based on MPL, some of the incompatibilities are explained in
Larry Rosen's
On 8/19/05, Robert W. Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting. Indeed,
the
cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case
for
compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses.
I don't follow the cross
Shawn Walker wrote:
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
modified to be GPL compatible.
81 matches
Mail list logo
