\Anthony W. Youngman\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And what happens if you DON'T have a place in common where you trade?
[...]
I don't know and it sounds like a common case in this global software
distribution game.
I just tried to add a trackback to this thread from the previously-cited
article and was
MJ Ray wrote:
I just tried to add a trackback to this thread from the previously-cited
article and was told 'ERROR: Comments and Trackbacks are disabled for
the entry you specified.' Clearly comments are enabled, as a comment
appears on that page. I'll try a cc on this mail, but I feel Sun
Tom Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon's blog entry is from a while ago, so yes the comments are closed.
Radical interface design idea: why not remove the links instead of
letting people waste time sending to an error-bouncer?
But you can comment here, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and/or
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Tom Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
If,
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
Once the the full JVM is available under GPL then running applications
on top of it *are* compatible with any license as this was the specific
rationale for adding the Classpath exception [1].
I think it can even go in contrib if it ends up
Tom Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
If, however, you are an individual, or a company that trades in
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:01:08 + (UTC) Mark Wielaard wrote:
The FAQ even says:
Q: How does this announcement affect Java EE?
A: Sun's implementation of Java EE 5 has been available as open-source
under the CDDL license through the GlassFish Community since June of
2005. In order to gain
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 18:18, Tom Marble a écrit :
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
Tom Marble Tom.Marble at Sun.COM writes:
Until very, very recently this hasn't even been possible as
we are fully aware that NetBeans has had various non-free
dependencies (which would have blocked it's inclusion in main).
Thus the primary rationale for liberating javac and JavaHelp
as part
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 à 11:18 -0600, Tom Marble a écrit :
Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects
that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like
accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE.
The purpose of packaging NetBeans for
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Please note that we don't accept software in Debian just because it is
useful, but also because it is free.
Understood.
That said, I agree with some of the arguments given about the
choice-of-venue clause. It is a bad clause, but I don't think it makes a
piece of
12 matches
Mail list logo
