>
> As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment for
> the Sodomotron 2000.
>
...which could certainly have been written:
As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
I actually don't really see a reason for being so aggressive verbally
with someo
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 198 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 96 (new: 2)
Total number of packages requeste
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:16:43PM -0500, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> There are a number of outstanding "insecure tempfile vulnerabilities",
> and there has been some talk that they're both too numerous and of low
> enough impact that they're not even worth releasing DSAs for. Never the
Where was tha
Michael Banck wrote:
> Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and
would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hubert Chan wrote:
> Another potential problem is if a run a suid (non-root) program that
> attempts to create a file in $TMP. But it's suid, so it doesn't run
> under my uid, and doesn't have permissions to write to $TMP. But I've
> never run across that -- suid programs are pretty uncommon.
I
At Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:11:56 -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
> I think i386 debian arch is not suitable anymore for real-i386 machines
> (self-experience), I mean, it's not suitable even for a Pentium 133 with
> 32 Mb RAM. Ok, I know it works, but it's a waste of memory and CPU
> cycles to run a full
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:16:43 -0500, Noah Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> session optional pam_tmpdir.so
> I have little operational experience with this PAM module, though.
> Does it cause problems for certain apps? If so, could these problems
> be solved with a less simplistic PAM c
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
> without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
> operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
> that those distributors can take advant
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
>
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
>> issue.
>>
>
> This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never
> felt wor
> "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Anyone knows what package brings the todos command?
>> >I had this error in a debian-cd try:
>> >tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found
>>
>> sysutils
>>
>> try something like 'a
Within the security team, there has recently been some talk of pushing
for per-user temp directories by default in etch. I'd like to see what
people's reaction to such a proposal would be.
There are a number of outstanding "insecure tempfile vulnerabilities",
and there has been some talk that the
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
>> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
>> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
>
> What is this
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be
> comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux. Not disappointing
> at all.
Well some points were factual, some were sun marketng, but it all did
seem to be tinged with a vaguely
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will refer back to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I
> wrote that we will have to disagree on the meaning of that phrase.
> You say that it includes system header files; I think a reasonable
> interpretation is that it means interface definition files for t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I suggest you go with lvm2 (or other device-manager based system) on top of
> a simple md array. It is much safer in the long run, even if it means
> initrds (yuck).
I did this. But actually I have 2 partitions, one containing md0 with ext3
root and the
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
>> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
>> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
>> making m
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
What is this "almost nobody"?
Debian most certain
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications. For applications -- w
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
>> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
>> of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
>> in
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
> work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
> of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also
> in no way part of the preferred form f
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Explain please.
>
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.
No. Any change to foo.c can be kept entirely private if you wish. The
GPL only requires that *if* you choose to distribute yo
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>> >
>> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> Th
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:17:41PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > If i then place a partition on the resulting device (md0) I can add
> > partitions for /, /usr, swap, etc. The installer partition wizard will
> > create /dev/md0pX devices
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> If i then place a partition on the resulting device (md0) I can add
> partitions for /, /usr, swap, etc. The installer partition wizard will
> create /dev/md0pX devices.
These are not well supported by anything. Lilo will croak. grub is grub is
grub,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
> >
> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>
> This is unsupportable hyperbole. Era
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Erast Benson said
> 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
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:38 -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being
> removed from the queue,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
>> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
>> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...
> I think that Sun did j
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:38:51AM -0800, Nick Jacobs said
> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degrading pe
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:04:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
> > they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
> > them to cooperate with yo
Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I was saying is that licensing _only_ under the GPL violates the
> spirit of the DFSG because the DFSG specifically also allows for software
> licenses which are not GPL compatible to be considered free.
What you are saying is still wrong.
Th
"Josselin Mouette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The documentation mentions that some compilers might need to be
executed as :
``CC=c89 CFLAGS=-O2 LIBS=-lposix ./configure''
But there is no posix library as far as I can make out in Debian, so
that won't do.
Y
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:18 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > No. That is not sufficient. This would simply be a subterfuge. If
> > you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still
> > distributing the libraries al
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 13:58 -0800, Peter Goldstein a écrit :
> sceplist.o: In function `asn1_time_to_time':
> /home/lars/src/openscep-0.3.6/scepd/sceplist.c:127: undefined
> reference to `altzone'
This is a link time error, not a compile time error.
> Now I gather that ``altzone'' should be
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
> for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports
> possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
> be enough t
Russ Allbery writes:
> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...
I think that Sun did just that, and the CDDL is doing exactly what the
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
>> against the spirit of the DFSG?
>
> You really want to claim the GPL violates the spirit of the DFSG?
>
Ok because Henning made the same mistake in comprehension let me clarify.
Wh
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>
> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt,
wrong, misleading, or have any number of other fla
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard
> non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution.
I am quite content with binaries built from my GPL-licensed software being
illegal for a port using a CDDL-licensed libc to redistrib
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:53:53AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
> >>have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
> >>licenses?
> >
> >Because the authors chose so.
> >
>
> Obviously. But the que
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have now a frst draft of a status-change mail system running. it
> works from the archive mirror on merkel, and sends out mail to
> @packages.debian.prg, with Bcc to the PTS
> It does not yet produce -testing-changes emails.
Now it does.
--
Hen
Hello,
I just used net-install to install on a md raid device. The debian installer
is happyly allowing me to place a single primary msdos partition on both of
my disks. make the partition of type md raid, and add those with the md
configurator into a single raid1 raid.
If i then place a partitio
Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
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
your problems are gone.
Effectively, might happen that once SUN released all the
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.
This is completely and fundamentally wrong.
> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
This is incomprehensible gibb
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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 w
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>> That's exactly the *point*.
> Explain please.
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed proje
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Also, I've investigated the mail backlog on master and found the main
> problem. The mail queue is currently full of email that will never be
> able to be delivered, all for one particular user. This mail is being
Can you give us more data on this?
--
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson 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
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL licens
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:51:31AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> The great thing about CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which
> are licensed under CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change
> made by anybody (including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed
> back to
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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
Title: altzone
Lars, If
you ever got an answer to your question below could you
share it with me.
I'm trying to compile a mixed fortran C code that
can't find
altzone.
Thanks,
Peter
Hello.
An ITP has been filed against wnpp that I wish to package OpenSCEP
(Bug #118532). This is a server
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
> your problems are gone.
Effective
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.
In fact, Debian and GPL software in general work just fine on non-GPL
compatible platforms. I use and distribute (even c
Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 21:39 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
> > You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> > work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> > been manufactured for 10 years
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:30PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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. Yo
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 Linux-kernel community will acknowlage
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:17 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good ...
Please look up the meaning of acronyms if you intend on using them. I
do not think it means what you thi
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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 w
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 Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
>
> Major shift of Linux users to OpenSo
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:
Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
(including propriatery distributors) *must* b
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
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
your problems are gone.
I hope I don't sound too harsh on you, but I'd find it naive to expect
the
Erast Benson wrote:
The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
That's exactly the *point*.
Explain please.
Read this book: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/ ,
then read this book: http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm ,
then read the GPL FAQs, and the
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 02:38 -0800, Nick Jacobs a écrit :
> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degradin
Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 08:56 -0800, DAWN NASH a écrit :
> I am looking for an embedded solution for AMD SC520 @133MHz processor,
> was wondering about the embedded Debian package.
There is no such thing as an "embedded Debian package". However the
Debian system ships with software packages su
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:26:51PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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. Y
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
Not every dpkg copyright holder is
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
> > over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
> > personally, I'd be sur
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 official port to Debian once
> >> > it
> >> > >
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 personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
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 to be saying that if a bunch of peopl
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 one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL wou
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
>> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
>> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
>> have t
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
> > software. But to avoid duplication of work, it w
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
> >> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time n
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on
> non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved.
Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.
--
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
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 official port to Debian once
>> > it
>> > > stabilizes?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Wasn't this already discussed regar
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
> against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
> (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
> investigated it
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
> > sure it is quite easy possible by mak
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
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
> > duplication of work. I do not think that the
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 to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other tha
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> It is not clear to me that
>>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>>> definition files".
>>
>> Wrong. Library header files that you link agains
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 Debian repository browser, etc. which need
>
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 will progress.
> > But, *yes* we are willin
Erast writes:
> But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to
> release dpkg under LGPL license.
That's entirely up to the authors. You are free to contact them.
> Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports.
Again you imply that the BSD license is n
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 one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow
>> people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg,
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It is not clear to me that
>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>> definition files".
>
> Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
> covers.
Then we will have to
Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not
> make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise
> DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather
> they who hold copyright) ought to consider it.
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
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL licens
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 needs, we're missing a great
> opportunity. I've got news for you: the g
At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
>
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> been manufactured for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
> for the 99.9% of x8
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
>> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
>
> ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Erast Benson 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
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release d
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
> CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
> CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
> (including propriatery distributors)
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
