Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU
> libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure,
> could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first
> ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture!
What do you expect from this "port"?
In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this
port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue.
> > makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that
> > Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed
> > under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the
> > glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD,
Debian is a license troll.
There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling:
1) Ignore it comppletely
2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense.
Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way.
BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications
against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not
say anything about it as this is something that happens "outside" the GPL
"work").
Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that
Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder
of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing
(2) above.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
gnusol-devel mailing list
gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
