Ed Cogburn wrote:
> They won't release SO source under GPL, they have their own "version"
> called the Sun Community License. From a few comments I've heard
> elsewhere, its not free in the freedom sense.
SO now is basically Sun's product; so the company needs to make sure
that any de
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 04:27:14PM -0400, William Schwartz wrote:
> FYI: that is not true, not any more. Microsoft has its "Windows Terminal
> Server Edition". It's a multi-user version of NT... Its aimed almost
> directly at the NC market, and actually works half way decently (if you can
> believe
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:37:29PM -0700, aphro wrote:
> i used to like IE more teh NS (back in 3.x) but ever since 4.x ive been
> devoted to NS. all the security problems and that whole activeX thing
> bugs me. that and the fact that i got mod_roaming for netscape, to update
> my prefs/bookmarks
i used to like IE more teh NS (back in 3.x) but ever since 4.x ive been
devoted to NS. all the security problems and that whole activeX thing
bugs me. that and the fact that i got mod_roaming for netscape, to update
my prefs/bookmarks/etc so my 500bookmarks are always available wherever i
may be.
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 02:50:08PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, J Horacio MG wrote:
>
> > And that is important. I believe M$ already released a Unix version of
> > outlook ... give them time and they'll do the same with M$ office; if
> > by then, there's not a good, well supported,
- Original Message -
From: Oki DZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Sun goes fully open source!
> BTW, M$ would have some difficulties in supporting NCs; NT is not
> multi-user.
FYI: that is not true, not any mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, J Horacio MG wrote:
> And that is important. I believe M$ already released a Unix version of
> outlook ... give them time and they'll do the same with M$ office; if
> by then, there's not a good, well supported, better marketeered, office
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> The pre-sun version was tied to a specific version of glibc.
> When glibc in potato got upgraded SO 5.1 broke.
s/5.1/5.01/ and you'll be correct. 5.1 worked fine with the potato glibc,
except for the brief period
J Horacio MG wrote:
>
> > John Foster wrote:
> > > Uh. It was already free, in the dollars and cents manner. They
> > > really gave back/up nothing.
> >
> > I think they give an impression: from now on, StarOffice is supported by
> > Sun.
>
> Yes, it's a world of marketing! Shame!
>
> > Uni
> John Foster wrote:
> > Uh. It was already free, in the dollars and cents manner. They
> > really gave back/up nothing.
>
> I think they give an impression: from now on, StarOffice is supported by
> Sun.
Yes, it's a world of marketing! Shame!
> Unix community at large can take advantage
Oki DZ wrote:
>
> Dave Baker wrote:
> > Unless they changed the license recently, this (stareoffice) is only free
> > in the monetary sense, not the freedom sense.
>
> I believe that monetary sense is the first step, and the freedom one is
> the next. Ask Sun; if there are enough Linux developers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Oki DZ wrote:
> John Foster wrote:
> >The only thing is that they can now turn it
> > into a sun proprietary thin client to run on their servers,
>
> Sun is giving away StarOffice for Linux, right? I think it doesn't
> matter if there's a
Dave Baker wrote:
> Unless they changed the license recently, this (stareoffice) is only free
> in the monetary sense, not the freedom sense.
I believe that monetary sense is the first step, and the freedom one is
the next. Ask Sun; if there are enough Linux developers who are willing
to support
"B. Szyszka" wrote:
> Well it's better than Microsoft capitalizing off others without giving them
> anything
> worthwhile at all. : )
You are forgetting something. Anything M$ provides (whether it's
worthwhile or not), M$ always gives away some other thing for free;
bugs.
Oki
--
It's a sma
John Foster wrote:
> Uh. It was already free, in the dollars and cents manner. They
> really gave back/up nothing.
I think they give an impression: from now on, StarOffice is supported by
Sun.
>The only thing is that they can now turn it
> into a sun proprietary thin client to run on their
Sean Johnson wrote:
>
> It's written Starzilla, but it's pronounced KOffice.
And about the conflict between Qt and GPL licenses?
Taupter
It's written Starzilla, but it's pronounced KOffice.
Sean
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:19:00AM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> J Horacio MG wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Oki DZ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > > Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech.
J Horacio MG wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Oki DZ wrote:
> >
> > > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's
> > > > crap and they
> > > > are only hoping to capitalize on the hardwork of others without giving
> > > > them
> > > > anything
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Oki DZ wrote:
>
> > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's crap
> > > and they
> > > are only hoping to capitalize on the hardwork of others without giving
> > > them
> > > anything truly worthwhile in return.
> >
>
Oki DZ wrote:
>
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's crap
> > and they
> > are only hoping to capitalize on the hardwork of others without giving them
> > anything truly worthwhile in return.
>
> Hi, what about a free office suite? It's som
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Oki DZ wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's crap
> > and they
> > are only hoping to capitalize on the hardwork of others without giving them
> > anything truly worthwhile in return.
>
> Hi, what about a free off
Ben Collins wrote:
> Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's crap and
> they
> are only hoping to capitalize on the hardwork of others without giving them
> anything truly worthwhile in return.
Hi, what about a free office suite? It's somekind of a return, isn't it?
> > download and run Solaris on my own system, make as many modifications as I
> > like,
> > as long as I don't re-distribute the changes. Sun is only trying to protect
> > it's
> Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It's crap and
> they
> are only hoping to capitalize
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 04:02:46AM +0100, John Gay wrote:
>
> download and run Solaris on my own system, make as many modifications as I
> like,
> as long as I don't re-distribute the changes. Sun is only trying to protect
> it's
Not being able to distribute your changes, is not free speech. It
True, not quite 'Full Open Source', but as Linus says, think of free speech, not
free beer! Just having access to the source code puts programmers years ahead of
where Microsoft would like them to be. By Sun's licence, I, and many others, can
download and run Solaris on my own system, make as man
No offence intended to either you or SUN, but I'd hardly call the SCSL
"fully open source". Just my opinion, mind...
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 01:07:18AM +0100, John Gay wrote:
>
>
> First, IBM, HP, Sun etc . . . join in supporting Linux, Then Apple starts
> releasing portions of Mac OS, and now
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 01:07:18AM +0100, John Gay wrote:
>
>
> First, IBM, HP, Sun etc . . . join in supporting Linux, Then Apple starts
> releasing portions of Mac OS, and now . . .
Sorry, but this is far from fully open source. If you fix bugs, you are
required by the license to report the ch
27 matches
Mail list logo
