* Tarkan Erimer wrote:
> [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in
actually, what you said was this:
" I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License"
the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL
compatible.). "
and to that the answer was:
" The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to
accept GPLv3 [...] "
in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a
specific action, but why did you then include a factually false
'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not
know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you
just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully?
Ingo
-
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
