On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 11:37 -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote: > Kristoff Bonne wrote: > >>> I though that "debian" filled in this part? Or not? > >>> > >> debian is entirely different distro using different kernel, I don't > >> understand what you mean by "filled in this part" > >> > > Not really. > > AFAIK, debian is a OS-distribution which can be build on top of a number > > of different kernels. Besides the linux-kernel, there are > > debian-distribution on top of the gnu hurd kernel and the freebsd-kernel. > > > > See here: http://www.debian.org/ports/#nonlinux > > > > > > > > So what I wonder is this: can you call nexenta a "debian on top of a > > opensolaris kernel"? > > > > > > How much of nexentaCP is "own" code (or ONb68-derived) and how much come > > from the "GNU" projects or from debian? > > > > Nexenta derives from Debian/Ubuntu but there are some kind of licensing > problems with "Debian on OpenSolaris". Otherwise, the analogy is correct.
With GPLv3 out, licensing is no longer an issue. Debian folks publicly accepting us: http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2007/07/06#2007-07-06-gplv3 """The second thing is that in reviewing our understanding of the system library exception, we might be in a position to have a Debian GNU/OpenSolaris port, making use of the exception for the CDDL-licensed OpenSolaris kernel and libc, as Nexenta do. That seems to me to be almost certainly possible for GPLv3 (or “GPLv2 or above”) applications, and probably possible for GPLv2 apps as well.""" We are currently working on debian.org/<something> web page. Likely it will be called something like /opensolaris, but internals will be Nexenta-based. > From my understanding: the base OS is ON, the packaging system is > Debian, the patches to packages to work together are Nexenta. In simplified way - you are correct. -- Erast _______________________________________________ gnusol-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
