Actually, I looked at that a while back. But it is written in C++ :(...
On 06/03/2008, Dennis Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you guys looked at the PNET compiler from DotGNU?
> Dennis
>
> *Jonathan Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Having had a HUGE discussion with
Have you guys looked at the PNET compiler from DotGNU?
Dennis
Jonathan Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
Having had a HUGE discussion with SharpOS last night I came up with a pretty
solid idea for merging our two codebases.
Firstly, I don't think it's a good idea to m
Hi All,
Having had a HUGE discussion with SharpOS last night I came up with a pretty
solid idea for merging our two codebases.
Firstly, I don't think it's a good idea to merge OCJ directly into SharpOS
right now: it will cause distractions (OCJ really needs to concentrate on
making a solid compil
> Actually, source code under a BSD-type license can be used within a GPL
> project (as long as the original copyright and BSD license notice
Well - not quite in most cases. GPL doesn't require the BSD attribution...
so unless you somehow "combine" or modify the GPL + BSD into one...
> However, I
Chad Z. Hower wrote:
> We don't aim to convince anyone. If you like BSD, join Cosmos. If you like
> GPL, join SharpOS. Pretty simple IMO.
Actually, source code under a BSD-type license can be used within a GPL
project (as long as the original copyright and BSD license notice continues
to remain)
> Actually I'm already giving by not demanding we stick with GPL because
But that's not "someone has to budge". I'm fine with you sticking to GPL -
but your statement was a bit of a contradiction.
> it is by far my strongest choice. If the license isn't going to be
> copyleft, then this isn't wor
> Where did you get that statistic? End-users? Programmers are not end-
> users. You will probably find that 90%+ of developers use Linux.
Show me *any* reputable statistic that even approaches that outrageous
number please
---
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Jonathan Dickinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dual licensing seems to have worked a few times, also, what keeps people
> unhappy about LGPL? GPL with a vasectomy: I think that may be a good
> compromise.
All of SharpOS is currently licensed under GPLv3 with the *C
On 05/03/2008, William Lahti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Polarize the hull plating.
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Someone has to give but you wont? :)
>
> Actually I'm already giving by not demanding we stick with GPL because
> it i
Singularity's source code is provided for non-commercial academic
research ONLY. SharpOS is not academic, it is not research, and it is
not necessarily non-commercial. The licensing is very incompatible.
Being exposed to the Singularity source code, and then proceeding to
contribute code to SharpO
On 05/03/2008, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > First things first, someone has to give on licensing and I can say for
> > myself at least that I'm not gonna work on a non-copyleft project. You
>
> Someone has to give but you wont? :)
>
> I think we are in the same situation
Anything removed from your response means I generally agree.
On 05/03/2008, William Lahti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh right, let's just dump all the progress we've already got and start
> completely from scratch. Forgive me if I'm not a big fan of this idea.
> And now on to your specific poin
Polarize the hull plating.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Someone has to give but you wont? :)
Actually I'm already giving by not demanding we stick with GPL because
it is by far my strongest choice. If the license isn't going to be
copyleft
> First things first, someone has to give on licensing and I can say for
> myself at least that I'm not gonna work on a non-copyleft project. You
Someone has to give but you wont? :)
I think we are in the same situation as before.
> Secondly I'm not going to participate in a project where only
Oh right, let's just dump all the progress we've already got and start
completely from scratch. Forgive me if I'm not a big fan of this idea.
And now on to your specific points-- you asked for bluntness and you
*got it*. But before you read my agitated responses (after all I
thought this was a disc
Not that it is a problem. I paroosed the filenames (*no* actual source code)
and saw that they are .sq (probably sing#) files. I do wish they had an ISO
or such for download though...
On 05/03/2008, Dennis Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is under the same license as Rotor, the Microsoft
This is under the same license as Rotor, the Microsoft open source version of
.NET.
Looking at Rotor "contaminates" you, and you cannot never commit cod eto Mono.
You might want to consider banning anyone who looks at Singularity from
comminting code to SharpOS.
Dennis
Jonathan Dic
Hi All,
Firstly, rather than saying 'stupid idea' could we rather all play the
devil's advocate. Let's debate this and see what we come up with.
We are all really wasting our time working on THREE projects (fyi,
www.ensemble-os.org, svn.ensemble-os.org). I think it is time for us to take
what we
The license states that "You may use, copy, reproduce, and distribute
this Software for any non-commercial academic purpose".
Notice the "academic" part?
It states:
"Some purposes which can be non-commercial academic are teaching,
academic research, and personal experimentation."
In other words, y
19 matches
Mail list logo
