On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want
to release their copyright (something about getting paid).
My understanding of Sun's CA is that one doesn't release one's
copyright; one assigns the same rights to another party
It would, possibly, ease the integration of GPLv3 licensed software, of
which currently none exists, and several large bodies of GPLv2 software
appear to have stated their lack of desire to move to the new license (or a
new license in general).
Or, perhaps more importantly, their inability to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither
license can be ripped off?
We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under
the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original
authors. If we cannot dual
Hey,
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like
the
Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the
caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as
rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of
a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the
future. Also, you
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with
the
caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well
as
rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part
of
a proprietary license or even an onerous license
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.
1 isn't necessary IMO, 2 also (perhaps), 3 definately.
and
In my opinion this feels
like a marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put Java
in front of everything.
...And which was one of the worst ideas in the history of marketing.
Example: what does Java, a programming language, have to do with the Java
Desktop System, a derivate
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like
the ksh93 integration need
Now, how many people we see contributing to Blastwave, SchiliX, BeleniX,
Nexenta and Martux all together? 5-15?
excuse me but Blastwave is not an OpenSolaris distro.
Its an open source software service to Solaris users.
There are 11 developers logged in right now. There have been 46 logins
Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon
Valley OpenSolaris User
Group, and that makes him a community member also!g
Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris?
We haven't seen a lot of decisions yet,
but we are starting to see
change inside Solaris
Tom Haynes wrote:
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like
the
UNIX admin wrote:
Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon
Valley OpenSolaris User
Group, and that makes him a community member also!g
Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris?
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/bios/bios-green.html
--
Alan Burlison
--
Christopher Mahan writes:
How hard would it be to reimplement the binary parts? Are there
patent issues?
Those who know the issues usually can't talk about them in any
detail. That's actually a good thing, as it leaves you untainted to
take on one of those helpful tasks. ;-}
In general,
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
GPL or CDDL is worthless mouth flapping with this, closed_bins
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
We can't have opensolaris without this; it's one reason Linux
The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD
license that all of us I think are grateful for.
Certainly. I'm grateful that OpenSolaris wasn't GPLed, and that it uses a less
extreme license (CDDL).
This message posted from opensolaris.org
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
... I don't get this.
The FSF have
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:31 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/31/07, Christopher Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please forgive the newbiness.
Can Open Solaris be built entirely from source?
Ask in opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org for details. The
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process respectively.
What's difficult about the closed bins apart from
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process respectively.
What's difficult about
So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough
for you? What if
GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to
what you're trying
to say.
Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their code
barely passing the ./configure phase between one Linux distro and
Stephen Harpster wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
because we're CDDL only?
That seems unlikely. At
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that you can judge that as an outsider; and you will
remain an outsider (even inside Sun) until you've run through the
complicated process of integrated a major piece of software in
Solaris.
It's easy to see this as just a little bit of paperwork or
Rubbish.
It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't
have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility
functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd,
there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that
you can't
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
because we're
Would this be an area where the community can help? I spent a lot of
time streamlining the software development and release process at my
last job. That's why, as an outside contributor, I can drop them code
and let the automatic test and release process do the rest.
Of course.
I have worked
UNIX admin wrote:
So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough
for you? What if
GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to
what you're trying
to say.
Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their code
barely passing the ./configure phase between
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:42 am, James Carlson wrote:
Why would a sensible GPL bigot want to do this?
I agree, and more so see the GPL bigots licensing their code in any way that
will make it more difficult for OpenSolaris to use it.
I'm not saying aligning with them will help, I don't
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Speculating about participation based on a license is far fetched. There are
many other things that would help assist that more than a license, such as
Source Code Management, Bug Reporting, and full access to all Sun cases (if
that piece is not done already, I think much of
OK. libc is a funky example. I was trying to say that we can take back
other licenses exactly as we do today. (There are all kinds of GPLv2
apps in OpenSolaris today.) Dual-licensing will not change that.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Of course, this also means that
--- John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I counted for defined but unimplemented i18n parts of libc. there's
about 150 functions that need to be rewritten. IBM released an
implementation under an artistic license, so those can just be
lifted. I just finished the count a few days
Richard Lowe wrote:
Tom Haynes wrote:
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is queued and no one
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 10:55 am, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the --
major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS
port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that
the GPL would
Stephen Harpster wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
I meant more for contributors who want to pull in changes from another
gpl3 project, for example... it won't be possible to package that with
the CDDL fork of opensolaris, only the gpl3 fork
If you pull OpenSolaris under the CDDL, then
John Sonnenschein writes:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able
to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins?
Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control
On 31-Jan-07, at 1:13 PM, Tom Haynes wrote:
Right now, OpenSolaris implies Sun. It doesn't have to. You could
take the latest
source code drop and fork it for your development effort.
Not while critical pieces of libc are closed you can't. This very
scenario you describe is currently
Tom Haynes wrote:
Richard Lowe wrote:
Tom Haynes wrote:
Josh Hurst wrote:
You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would
allow people to participate without waiting months to see the
submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a
very dumb bug is
On 1/31/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thinking about why we don't have more community participation on
OpenSolaris.
This has worried me too. Remember, though, that all the Sun people
count as community too and I'm sure they are contributing too.
I don't see committing code as
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 1:13 PM, Tom Haynes wrote:
Right now, OpenSolaris implies Sun. It doesn't have to. You could take
the latest
source code drop and fork it for your development effort.
Not while critical pieces of libc are closed you can't. This very
scenario you
No, but then again, you don't have any proof on the reverse case.
The fact is that you really won't know until we do it, or don't do it,
and then see what happens. And it makes it really hard to make an
educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license.
But we can make somewhat
... okay, so the subject is probably broad and vague.
But a bunch of people have complained about participation, specifically
about how much *process* is involved in putting back, and how hard it is
for external developers to go through the sponsor process.
[begin shameless plug for my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would this be an area where the community can help? I spent a lot of
time streamlining the software development and release process at my
last job. That's why, as an outside contributor, I can drop them code
and let the automatic test and release process do the rest.
Ian Collins wrote:
Would this be an area where the community can help? I spent a lot of
time streamlining the software development and release process at my
last job. That's why, as an outside contributor, I can drop them code
and let the automatic test and release process do the rest.
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
wouldn't be able to take back.
Stephen Harpster wrote:
It's a really good question. I don't know. I'm waiting to hear from
legal...
(And this is
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
we wouldn't be able to take back.
Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
no one here wants to
James Carlson wrote:
Rewriting them is under anyone's control, provided that the person
involved isn't tainted.
And that is what makes it hard for *Sun* to rewrite these bits - if the
spec/implementation is covered by a NDA, then the very people who would be
the best ones to reimplement it,
On 1/31/07, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... okay, so the subject is probably broad and vague.
But a bunch of people have complained about participation, specifically
about how much *process* is involved in putting back, and how hard it is
for external developers to go through the
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect
distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags.
This is not a problem that is caused by the CDDL but by the fact that some
people at Debian missinterpret
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps so; but we don't want to compromise o quality :-)
I think, though, that you would need the baptism by fire first;
a bit of a Catch-22, but in my experience it was a real eye opener.
I feel maybe we're getting closer to the issue. I think a lot of
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually think it makes it MUCH more complex.
It was possible *before* OpenSolaris to write and legally ship a GPLv2
device driver for Solaris if you stuck to the DDI. This is really no
different that writing a GPLv2 application that uses a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the
biggest issue in porting Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ?
Depends on the type of driver; but in some cases this is true; if not,
it would not have been possible to create the device
Hey,
Peter Tribble wrote:
Is there any mileage in things like bug days, or focussed campaigns
on particular topics?
All these things would be absolutely awesome - just takes one person to stand up
and volunteer to take it on.
FWIW, as a Sun employee, 90% of my OpenSolaris work at the moment
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date
Hello Glynn,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 8:29:31 PM, you wrote:
GF There may never be a community phenomenon quite like Linux in terms of
numbers
GF and the creation of a grass roots environment.
There's a community phenomenon but frankly I think people exaggerate
it. I mean when you put
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps so; but we don't want to compromise o quality :-)
I think, though, that you would need the baptism by fire first;
a bit of a Catch-22, but in my experience it was a real eye opener.
I feel maybe we're getting closer to
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
wouldn't be able to take back.
That was quick - I'm mightily impressed by your Sun-Lawyer-Fu ;-)
However, the answer is rather
* Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-31 02:53]:
Peter Buckingham wrote:
Hi All,
Honeycomb is a unique archival storage product developed within Sun. It
is built upon a clustered system and provides strong reliability
guarantees for it's data storage (Write-Once, Read Many) and
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
we wouldn't be able to take back.
Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
no
Phillip (Flip) Russell wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
we wouldn't be able to take back.
Well that puts an end to this little
On 1/31/07, Phillip (Flip) Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
we wouldn't be able to take back.
Well that
On 1/31/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process
Phillip (Flip) Russell wrote:
What is wrong about the open source freedom to fork?
Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
I think it's the Can't take back changes bit that is problematic, not
the Fork bit. If I'm understanding correctly, if a bug was fixed in a
GPLv3-only fork
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
wouldn't be able to take back.
That was quick - I'm mightily impressed by your Sun-Lawyer-Fu ;-)
It was presumably quick because it's the only
Ian Collins wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Legal says yes, it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
we wouldn't be able to take back.
Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
I feel maybe we're getting closer to the issue. I think a lot of
people are put off by the perceived complexity of submitting code to
OpenSolaris. I also think that not compromising on quality is a good
goal, but that you have to understand that the community only
produces Very Good Code only
Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
because we're CDDL only?
If
Is it possible to get the wheel on a Sun USB mouse doing something useful under
CDE on S9? If not scrolling then middle clicking?
Thanks
Andrew.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
John Plocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
I think CDDL has clearly solved several issues for OpenSolaris, and it's
offered new opportunities as well
If GPLv3 had been available when OpenSolaris was being launched, and
it would have provided for closed-bin, closed
Is it possible to get the wheel on a Sun USB mouse doing something useful
under CDE on S9? If not
scrolling then middle clicking?
The wheel should work as buttons 3 (click) 4 5. If you're up to date
with patches, that is.
Casper
___
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.
But if we get rid
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel maybe we're getting closer to the issue. I think a lot of
people are put off by the perceived complexity of submitting code
to
OpenSolaris. I also think that not compromising on quality is a
good
goal, but that you have to understand that the community
Andrew Pattison wrote:
Is it possible to get the wheel on a Sun USB mouse doing something useful under CDE on
S9? If not scrolling then middle clicking?
Clicking should just work as middle button automatically.
For mouse wheel support at all, make sure you've got the
kernel mouse wheel
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
dual licensing is trying to solve?
one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
And today, after 1.5 year of
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?
Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
outside
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:24 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
dual licensing is trying to solve?
one little problem... to become
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?
It is only a proof for the fact that Debian is no longer a free project anymore
and that some people
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry to read this from you. From the discussions we did have in the
past,
I know that you know that this is not true.
I'm sorry I cited it. But this is fact of history. Yes I never fully
agreed with what happened.
Some people started a
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care
about our company!
It is
GPL, on the other hand, is aimed at forcing the
world to adopt the
FSF's Free philosophy, and to discourage
non-free software in
all forms.
This raises an other point I'd like to make, suppose
you have
a choice of different licenses and they are named:
Fascist Source
- If the main GPL project in the OpenSolaris
space is not
even considering GPLv3, what advantage does
this have?
- What can be done against a tear-off CDDL
community split?
For me the big difference is the fact that GPLv3
will remove the grey area of
device drivers and
Erast Benson wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?
No, because cdrecord isn't OpenSolaris, and I don't believe in looking
to external communities for validation of what
Shawn Walker wrote:
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care
about our
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:14 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
the problem that
dual licensing is trying to solve?
one little problem... to become a major
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would
like to increase outside
contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just
not possible in
foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute
to
Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?
No, because cdrecord isn't OpenSolaris, and I don't believe in looking
to
I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a bad idea.
I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain popularity. Most
people here(from the responses i've read) seem quite happy with the current
license. I'm quite suprised that some think the community isn't
Shawn Walker wrote:
Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the license. Whether
this means not anything else as well is not clear. I'm just saying
that I find that particular terminology in any context unsettling.
Acceptance should almost never be more important to me personally.
Shawn Walker wrote:
Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the
license. Whether
this means not anything else as well is not clear.
I'm just saying
that I find that particular terminology in any
context unsettling.
Acceptance should almost never be more important to
me
If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems
that nobody on
either side of this debate (I see at least a
triangle: CDDL only / dual
CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ]
actually has any evidence
only opinions about what might happen.
--
Darren J Moffat
On 1/31/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
the problem that
dual licensing is
Joerg Schilling wrote On 02/01/07 04:27,:
Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
I'd like to grow a bit faster, but in general I absolutely
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Brian McCafferty wrote:
I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a
bad idea. I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain
popularity. Most people here(from the responses i've read) seem
quite happy with the current license.
Joerg Schilling wrote On 02/01/07 04:27,:
Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
I'd like to grow a bit faster, but in general I absolutely
Shawn Walker wrote:
I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great
people to work with. The whole closed bins issue
though is a real dog.
Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code
replacements
for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do
this. This
would be a
From where I see it, the participation issue is due
to a process
hat comes pretty close to making someone a unpaid Sun
employee - of
sorts. To even have a contribution considered, I have
to sign the
Contributor Agreement. That agreement is with Sun
Microsystems Inc,
not
101 - 200 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
