Michel,
not sure if you heard of http://www.nexenta.org
you can find many patches here: http://www.nexenta.org/diffs-gnusolaris
but this is Debian/OpenSolaris platform - perfect for storage and
reliable servers.
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 15:51 +0100, BRIAND, Michel (EKITO) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> dpkg port
On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 16:47 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NoMoreSourcePackages is a description of
> the new world order for Ubuntu packages -- which will simplify making
> changes to Ubuntu packages to a matter of simply committing the change
> to the source
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> >> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> &g
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> >
> > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > be called "scripts":
> >
> &
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget that Joerg were main developer of cdrtools for quite some
> > time and we should respect his point of view on how result of his work
> > for
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 18:42 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refra
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Be
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Be
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:25 +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2006-07-07 kello 08:52 -0700, Erast Benson kirjoitti:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work creates a
> > > work th
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > I completely fail to see any logic here:
> > > * cdrtools, obviously completely non-free, is in main
>
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:57:54AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Kevin Bube wrote:
> > > What about switching to dvdrtools? I think this project was
> > > started to solve the frequently recurring arguments about the
> > > licensing and t
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 21:47 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 06 July 2006 21:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:56 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> > > > > Will the package be orphande next time?
> > > >
> > > > No,
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:56 +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> > > Will the package be orphande next time?
> >
> > No, depending on the outcome of the licensing issues, either the current
> > maintainers still continue to maintain the package, or it has to be
> > removed from Debian completely.
>
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:55 -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 09:20:34PM +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > With the 2.6 kernel programs using OSS for sound are not working
> > anymore. Sound that is. One *may* use aoss, but then the user needs to
> > open a terminal and write:
>
> On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:44:50 -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
>> because non-glibc Debian architectures does exists (i.e.
>> FreeBSD,Solaris,Darwin), and it is time to consider them and accept
>> their existence. Those core architectures are open sourced and their
>> comm
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 18:54 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > So, why GLIBC is so important to you? What do you miss in SUN C library?
> > And why do you think technically impossible to extend SUN C library with
&g
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:40 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 19:06, Erast Benson wrote:
> -cut--
> > Clean way would be to extend SUN C library with missing GLIBC
> > functionality. Btw, have you seen SUN C library code? Its done very
> > clean, very
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 19:14 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 17:34, Erast Benson wrote:
> --cut--
> > > > But I hope you still got me right. For me, all these "things" are
> > > > existing applications which must run. The world is not 100
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 22:45 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> >> to the archive
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 17:09 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> >> Then provide the Solaris libc and other support libraries somewhere
> >> proprietary applications can use them, whi
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 09:49 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:35, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > Do you really
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 10:44 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> >> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> >> to the archive officially (but that doesn&#
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 23:05 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Erast Benson writes...
>
> > Once you accompany OpenSolaris kernel with GLIBC, you will kill this
> > capability, you will not be able to run anything other than OSS compiled
> > for your particular distro. That was
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 20:32 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> If you aren't getting Solaris-specific features (dtrace, etc ?),
> then what's the point of running Solaris?
Nexenta is absolutely rock stable OS (thanks to legendary Solaris
history) and moving towards running any applications written for So
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 21:11 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:51:09AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Do you really believe so? Do you understand that such a "hybrid" will
> > not run any existing Solaris apps like you will not be able to r
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:32 -0500, Michael Banck wrote:
> We had a pure NetBSD port before, but so far no non-glibc port got added
> to the archive officially (but that doesn't mean it would get rejected
> if it was of release quality).
>
> IMHO a glibc-based OpenSolaris would certainly be the b
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 17:54 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 20 mai 2006 à 08:07 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > > Please wake up. Debian is a GNU system and needs a GNU environment. I
> > > doubt that more than half of the archive can build without the GNU li
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:37 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Sex, 2006-05-19 às 17:52 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu:
> > is platform independent and just works. And if Debian's meta-information
> > introduces problem for package which compiles and runs just fine from
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:33 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 13:15 -0700, Alex Ross a écrit :
> > Ideally though, there'd be an augmented policy of package acceptance,
> > reflecting the fact that the packages with "Architecture: any" should build
> > and run on one of the
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 07:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Samstag, 20. Mai 2006 12:01 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen:
>
> >> So I would say less than 20% of the free software is platform
> >> independent, based on personal problems.
>
> > And the oth
On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:01 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Erast Benson]
> > And thanks to upstream folks, 90% of OSS software is platform
> > independent and just works.
>
> Just to get the facts straight here. I compile and port free software
> regularly to Lin
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 14:44 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> > >>The following is based on premises that portability is good and that
> > >>POSIX is a
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 17:41 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:13:57AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > Why not simply Provide: sunwlxsl all of the
> > > time, doesn't it
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 12:18 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:13:57AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > Why not simply Provide: sunwlxsl all of the
> > > time, doesn't it provide sunwlx
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 00:04 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > +Provides: sunwlxsl [solaris-i386]
> > Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
>
> Why not simply use Provide: ${misc:Provides} and set misc:Provides to
>
Hi,
I'm thinking of the way to putback NexentaOS[1] changes some more.
As far as OpenSolaris core is concerned, we need to provide virtual
packages, like sunwxml and sunwlxsl to make native SVR4 packaging system
dependency happy. I'm looking to the right way to do so.
Bellow is the snippet from l
Hi Guys,
Back in November 2005 Michael Schultheiss performed initial analysis of
dpkg patches at [1]. Our dpkg implementation has changed a bit since
than.
Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
We would like to start s
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries
>> next
>> to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust>) in your
>> "open
>> source" project ?
>
> George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objectio
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
>> >> find
>> >> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 pack
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
>
>> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
>> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
>> modifications for every package we are using.
>>
>> We are preparing cron j
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote:
>> OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has
>> everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our
>> modifications for every package we are using.
>>
>> We are pr
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote:
>> www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*.
>
> Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs
> (i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface.
>
>> > this URL al
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>
>> this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt
>> > (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested
>> in my
>> > other mail.
>
>> I'm personally
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Dear Erast!
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
>> >> > libiconv.s
> Dear Erast!
>
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote:
>> > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
>> > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1,
>> > which must be provided under terms no more re
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can
>> find
>> debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is
>> not committed yet and we are testing it right now and wil
David,
this is the place were source code lives:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu
or
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find
debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiv
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at
>> http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1
>
> Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3,
> l
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> What is this "will be"? You are distributing binaries now; you must
>>> therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible
>>> with the GPL.
>>
>> You are
> "Erast Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to
>>> check
>>> the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any?
>>
>> you can check, than re-check
> David Schmitt writes:
>> I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your
>> website
>> and found a dpkg binary on it.
>
>> Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary,
>> despite it being obviously under the GPL[2].
>
> Was the requisite written offer
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.
>
> Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of
> OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of
> y
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> > sooner Lin
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users,
> they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their
> wares.
Please wake up. :-)
This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon doll
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Erast Benson writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an of
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I personall
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
>
> You seem t
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free
> >> software is a better o
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> > strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> > softwa
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> > should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
> > somehow by not conforming to your n
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
> >> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
> >>
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
> you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
> of some of its co
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> > make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
>
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> > variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> > duplicatio
OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken.
Thanks.
Erast
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
>
> >> > > > There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
> >> > > > web-based
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > it
> > > stabilizes?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible w
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Matthew:
>
> > > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
> >
> > Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing wil
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> > to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
>
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> > to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LG
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest
> > to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the
> > license of that code serio
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> > GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or through APT
&g
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> > GPL:
> >
> > """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it. For an executabl
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:47 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:52:07PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Th
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Michael Banck wrote:
> &g
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 22:01 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > but their loyers obviosly reads GPL differently. since they do ship
> > GNOME as their primary JDS desktops, among others GNU GPL software, gcc,
> > tar, s
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:25 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The issue... what issue? The http://www.sun.com/gnome issue? The
> > numerous-our-examples issue?
>
> Of course, that's an issue.
>
> Sun does not have the right to ship Gnome with Solari
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 19:34 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let me re-phrase your question. What Debian Community wants from Nexenta
> > OS? Do they care to support GNU/Solaris as another *real* system in
> > their
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> >
> >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> >
> > There i
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:20 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If you want to be part of Debian, one of the requirements is that you
> help convince us when there is doubt that there isn't a licensing
> problem. Repeated assertion does not convince us. Pointing at
> websites that require registr
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CDDL is a good open source license and "blessed" by R.S.
>
> That does not make it compatible with the GPL. You cannot combine
> code from
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't want to debate on legality of GPL vs. CDDL. But if you in doubt,
> > you could try to ask Sun lawers on why exactly this is possible:
> >
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:12PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it. For an executable work, compl
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Michael Banck wrote:
> >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> >> tracking system for development?
> >
> > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
>
> It's unlikely t
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:18 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating
> >
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Alex Ross:
> > >
> > > > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for i
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Alex Ross:
>
> > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
>
> How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute
> software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is
> linked against a lib
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:16 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:07:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:24 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > > 2) 2,300
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:24 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:21:45PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
>
> [...]
>
> > There are probably very few projects that can come anywhere close to
> > Nexenta OS,
> > in terms of t
89 matches
Mail list logo
