On 8/15/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Mika Borner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There is a campaign against the CDDL and I don't know who's behind that
> campaign.
>
> Not sure...
>
> >A week ago, I did enhance the amount of information about the CDDL
> >on wikipedia and yesterday, this additional information has been
> removed.
>
> From my point of view, all the important information is still there.
> The entry was just fixed, to not sound like a religious war. IMHO if you
Did you really look at the differences?
They removed the information about the fact that the CDDL has been selected as
one of 9 preferred licenses and they removed a hint on a link that is just a
collection of all false claims on the CDDL.
Unfortunately, you can't call really get away with calling it "false,"
you can call it an opinion piece, but anything else is likely to be
considered "controversial."
As far as the "9 preferred licenses," that isn't yet official from
what I read. If there is a link to where it's been made official, then
adding that to the page would be legitimate.
As long as there is 10 times as much "information" on the GPL that is totally
biased, I cannot see wipipedia as neutral in this case.
Your language is often considered confrontational, and in this
particular case, it seemed "biased" even to someone like me who
supports the CDDL.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
