Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Do we really think it's a good idea to approve of giving copyright
>> holders extra leverage for such lawsuits in their license, and just
>> hope that none of these copyrights ever wind up
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they
> don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter
> in account only if the licence is broken,
There's your mistake. A choice-of-venue clause become
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > > These two do not app
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > > can be "free" w
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > > I must
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license
> > can be "free" with a venue choice that you do not consider "sane"), so
> > I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please?
> If we re
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:47:14AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Lionel Elie Mamane]
> > Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the "normally
> > distributed with the major components of the operating system on
> > which the executable runs" clause of the GPL?
>
> Read that sentence
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
> > the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
> > debian-legal, full of chine
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:24:19AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-07 07:31:48]:
> > Ok, but this is not what has been floating around, either here, or on the
> > open
> > solaris mailing lists. I mostly see wild claims and plain FUD and such.
>
> Even
* Lionel Elie Mamane:
> Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the "normally
> distributed with the major components of the operating system on which
> the executable runs" clause of the GPL?
I used to think that, too, but the GPL actually reads:
| However, as a special exception, the s
* Matthew Garrett:
> Hmm. From a technical side of things, how much effort is going to have
> to go into porting glibc in order to support all the nice features of
> the Solaris kernel? From the legal side of things, I'd be surprised if
> any upload of CDDLed material was rejected out of hand.
Th
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
>> the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
>> debian-legal, full of chinese di
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:32:09AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the "normally
> distributed with the major components of the operating system on which
> the executable runs" clause of the GPL?
Irrelevant. In addition to what Peter said, you sho
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
> the lone choice of venue thingy, and its rather feeble argumentation on
> debian-legal, full of chinese dissidents and desert islands :)
> The only sane solution and the one i
[Lionel Elie Mamane]
> Wouldn't the C library, of all libs, fall under the "normally
> distributed with the major components of the operating system on
> which the executable runs" clause of the GPL?
Read that sentence closely. If _you_ are distributing _both_ libc and
gplfoo, then the "normally
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:35:54AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue
>> clause,
> There's a far more serious problem, which has nothing to do with the
> DFSG - the FSF's interpretation of t
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-07 07:31:48]:
> Ok, but this is not what has been floating around, either here, or on the open
> solaris mailing lists. I mostly see wild claims and plain FUD and such.
Even Jörg Schilling is there. (c:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:55:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, sure, but in the case of an OpenSolaris kernel with a glibc based
> > userland, as we are considering, the point is moot, as the kernel/userland
> > interface is enough to stop any
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, sure, but in the case of an OpenSolaris kernel with a glibc based
> userland, as we are considering, the point is moot, as the kernel/userland
> interface is enough to stop any derivative-work-contagion, so we are back to
> the lone choice of venue th
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:35:54AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue clause,
> > which i am perosnally dubious of it falling the DFSG (as readers of
> > debian-legal my know, and others c
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems the only oposition to this thus far is the choice of venue clause,
> which i am perosnally dubious of it falling the DFSG (as readers of
> debian-legal my know, and others can search for QPL and ocaml there).
There's a far more serious problem, wh
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:04:21AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-05 20:59:10]:
> some discussion happend here, but later on in the thread it
> becomes clear that there is a lot of confusion of the official
> position of debian towards a debian with
* Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-05 20:59:10]:
some discussion happend here, but later on in the thread it
becomes clear that there is a lot of confusion of the official
position of debian towards a debian with an opensolars kernel.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messa
On Monday 05 September 2005 20:59, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> The Sun folks understand full well the power of a debian port of
> openSolaris and the lift they would get from it. (c:
Hmm. It would be nice if they were as supportive for the sparc port. Maybe
we could make a package deal :-P
pgpSFk
* Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-05 21:14:20]:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
> > asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
> > openSolaris in the course of the r
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
> asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
> openSolaris in the course of the recent announcement.
>
> However he said it would stay with the CD
I just chatted with Sun's FOSS embassador Simon Phillips and i
asked if Sun would switch to a LGPL compatible license even for
openSolaris in the course of the recent announcement.
However he said it would stay with the CDDL and was not aware how
that would hinder a debian port of openSolaris. Cou
27 matches
Mail list logo
