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, and you speak of a single text ? And there are at least 3 or 4
> other such long threads about this in the debian-legal archive over the past
> year or so.
It is simple to flood a mailing list with hundreds of mails...
Did you see new ideas during the last weeks?
> > If you did, you would know that Debian accepts the CDDL as being compliant
> > with their goals. Note that I did already write this about a month ago.
>
> Nice, do you have a quote or official statement for this, or do we only have
> your word on that ?
If you don't believe me, why didn't you ask a month ago when I did first
mention it?
7 months ago I did change star's license from GPL to CDDL.
Star is still in the "free" part of the Debian software list.
If someone at Debian had problems with the CDDL I would have been contacted
and there was a _real_ discussion about the CDDL.
The thread you were referring to is unrelated to a real world problem and
for this reason, I see it as a typical "discussion" that attracts trolls.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
