Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-02 Thread Joerg Schilling
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I'd rephrase this assertion as: No copyright holder is ever explicitly forced to license under the GPL, though the intent of the GPL is to apply market pressure to convince all such software hoarders to do so over time. Thank you for

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Jakma
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jasse Jansson wrote: When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own ^^^ ^^^ terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Jakma
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Paul Jakma wrote: Sigh, important typing mistake: This conclusion of yours seems to be without merit. Licence transformation can occur without the copyright holders consent. ^ not regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-01 Thread John Plocher
... as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... Assume I have a software program that consists of some parts that are mine and other parts that are yours. Furthermore, assume that you

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-01 Thread Paul Jakma
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, John Plocher wrote: I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... Ditto, and ditto. It also follows that nobody else (other than you) can do so either. That depends on whether I got you to grant me reciprocal rights to your work when I granted you

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-02-01 Thread Ignacio Marambio Catán
John Plocher wrote: ... as long as those terms clearly permit all the activities that this License permits I am (thankfully) not a lawyer. I don't speak for Sun. YMMV... err... what's wrong with being a lawyer? ;) imho this thread is now a little off topic nacho

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Calum Benson
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 23:32 -0800, UNIX admin wrote: That's such a pity. Sure, one should look for new ways to bring the word out. But going to extremes just to get attention? What about collateral and long term damage that GPL could cause to Sun? Well, I guess if Scott felt that Jonathan's

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Paul Jakma
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, UNIX admin wrote: This is what I am referring to, among other things: 7. License Compatibility. When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate copyright permission, as long

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Ignacio Marambio Catán
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Why is CDDL suddenly no good any more? Why? Who says it is not? JS's blog talked of the possibility of *additional* /dual-licencing/ under the GPLv3. I really fail to see any advantage, if my interpretation of the GPLv3 draft is correct, than

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Jasse Jansson
On Jan 31, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Paul Jakma wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, UNIX admin wrote: This is what I am referring to, among other things: 7. License Compatibility. When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own terms covering added parts for which you have, or can

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Ben Rockwood
UNIX admin wrote: I always take what Jonathan writes about with a pinch of salt. To be sure, the man's got some great ideas and he's got some vision. But unfortunately, he's becoming more of a marketeer then he ever was before, in the most negative sense. That's such a pity. Sure, one

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread James C. McPherson
Ben Rockwood wrote: ... Jonathan is a smart guy, and even though Scott seems to have all the visability theses days lets not doubt Jonathan's wisdom untill we have a reason to question him. Frankly, I'm standing behind Jonathan and won't bother sweating the small stuff. And in the

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-31 Thread Roberto J. Dohnert
I personally blogged about it over the weekend. And I do feel if Sun goes the route of GPL 3 they will be inhibiting the platform a great deal. http://rjdohnert.blogspot.com/2006/01/opensolaris-released-under-gpl3.html Joerg Schilling wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-30 Thread UNIX admin
That's not true. These are the old GPLv2 'aggregation' / 'system libraries' argument held against Nexenta by some. Groundless even according to Eben Moglen, the FSF chief counsel. The v3 draft has modifications to explicitely make these 'issues' in v2 clear to all. This is what I am

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Jonathan Schwartz and OpenSolaris GPLv3

2006-01-30 Thread UNIX admin
To be honest, I think you /sometimes/ have to take what Jonathan blogs about with a pinch of salt... part of his job (and hence part of the reason for his blog's existence) is to get people talking about Sun, and Sun's software in particular. And if there's one surefire way to get the