On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:29:31PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> I think that in this instant case, the "hostility" is the allegation
> that a Debian-based "GNU/Solaris" system as described by Erast isn't
> possible.
Of course it's possible. Trivially: you do it by buying a majority of
shares in all the companies that own rights to OpenSolaris, and rerelease
it under the GPL. There are far easier ways than that available, too.
Telling someone that what they're trying to achieve is "impossible"
is generally hostile in any case, in the sense of "marked by features
that oppose constructive treatment or development". How do you go from
"sorry, can't be done." to constructive development?
> Even when pressed, Erast hasn't addressed the CDDL/GPL
> incompatibility issue.
As is "pressing" people. You can justify hostility, certainly; but it's
at least worth trying "honest and cooperative" as an approach first.
> I don't see it as hostility, I see it as an attempt to enforce the GPL.
When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms,
what's your reaction:
(a) gosh, what can I do to convince the author to give it to me
under the GPL?
(b) you aren't/shouldn't be allowed to do that. stop now.
(c) *shrug*
I'd expect a free software supporter to choose some variation on one of
those; and a free software advocate to choose one of the first two. Of
those two, I think the first is much more effective.
And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people
remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here?
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature