Re: rhwas 5 work?

William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 20:29 +0000, Karanbir Singh
wrote:
>> John Summerfield wrote:
>>> Karanbir
>>> I find you very difficult to deal with, and I
don't want that. Can we
>>> try to keep things calm?
>> I am always calm 
>>
>>> I have no standing with the CentOS project, and
I don't wish to become a
>>> developer. I know myself well enough to
understand that it's not
>>> something I do well, even though a resume of my
experience might suggest
>>> otherwise.
>> Well, the whole point to CentOS is that anyone and
everyone should be
>> able to help along. Dont need a tag / title..
> 
> And a good part of that is contributing ideas,
pointers, support to
> others, etc. IMO. Not everyone has time or inclination
to contribute in
> ways that the project might like.
> 
> And that fits within the spirit of open source, no?

Thanks Bill.

In this particular case, Johnny more than anyone else speaks
for CentOS, 
and I probably least of all.

CentOS has a problem with the Sun licence. On checking, it
didn't seem 
so bad. Okay, so it maybe still isn't good enough. Perhaps
one of the 
leaders ought tell Sun; in view of its decision to
open-source Java, 
maybe Sun will move a little more. I don't think IBM will
argue against 
more freedom, it's been taking shots at Sun over the matter
for years.

I'm the last person who should be negotiating on CentOS's
behalf, _this_ 
has to be done by an acknowledged leader, whether it's
Johnny, Karanbir 
or someone else. Someone with a sound knowledge of the
issues, someone 
Sun will see as someone representing the project.

If the licence issue is resolved satisfactorily, _then_
there will be 
some work to do, and maybe someone with needs in that area
will step up.




-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaacoco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaacoco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoo
t.com/advice/email.top.php
ht
tp://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support
.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

John Summerfield wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 20:29 +0000, Karanbir Singh
wrote:
>>> John Summerfield wrote:
>>>> Karanbir
>>>> I find you very difficult to deal with, and
I don't want that. Can we
>>>> try to keep things calm?
>>> I am always calm 
>>>
>>>> I have no standing with the CentOS project,
and I don't wish to 
>>>> become a
>>>> developer. I know myself well enough to
understand that it's not
>>>> something I do well, even though a resume
of my experience might 
>>>> suggest
>>>> otherwise.
>>> Well, the whole point to CentOS is that anyone
and everyone should be
>>> able to help along. Dont need a tag / title..
>>
>> And a good part of that is contributing ideas,
pointers, support to
>> others, etc. IMO. Not everyone has time or
inclination to contribute in
>> ways that the project might like.
>>
>> And that fits within the spirit of open source,
no?
> 
> Thanks Bill.
> 
> In this particular case, Johnny more than anyone else
speaks for CentOS, 
> and I probably least of all.
> 
> CentOS has a problem with the Sun licence. On checking,
it didn't seem 
> so bad. Okay, so it maybe still isn't good enough.
Perhaps one of the 
> leaders ought tell Sun; in view of its decision to
open-source Java, 
> maybe Sun will move a little more. I don't think IBM
will argue against 
> more freedom, it's been taking shots at Sun over the
matter for years.
> 
> I'm the last person who should be negotiating on
CentOS's behalf, _this_ 
> has to be done by an acknowledged leader, whether it's
Johnny, Karanbir 
> or someone else. Someone with a sound knowledge of the
issues, someone 
> Sun will see as someone representing the project.
> 
> If the licence issue is resolved satisfactorily, _then_
there will be 
> some work to do, and maybe someone with needs in that
area will step up.

John,

Actually ... Sun DID do something about the license, they
changed it 
completely for new versions of Java to GPL 

The issue is, that the versions of Java that is GPL is 1.6.0
and newer 
... and that CentOS-5 uses 1.4.2 level things.

The problem we have is with distributing the 1.4.2 version
... which Sun 
really can't change more than they have (or at least they
seem unwilling 
to do so).

The GPL'ed version, 1.6.0, I am trying to get working on
CentOS-5 in a 
sane way right now.

If we can make that work ... AND IF it will build the
required java bits 
... AND AGAIN IF we can make that work with the other gcj
java bits 
already throughout CentOS, then we will be in business.

That is really the issue.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel