Sorry. Yes. I stand corrected on the licensing issue (although I suspect that Sun would have tried harder if it was relevant to OpenSolaris, which it doesn't seem to be.)
However, I still stand by the "safeness" of it. :-) James Carlson wrote: > Michael Ramchand writes: > >> Uwe Dippel wrote: >> >>> Alas, that's the one thing that it is not. (Just search the archives, if in >>> doubt.) >>> I'm not working for SUN, only summarize what I picked up on the way here: >>> LU was bought from a third party, cannot be redistributed therefore, is >>> maintained only, and will be replaced by a new system as soon as possible; >>> at least for OpenSolaris. >>> >>> >> That's not exactly true. The fact it that OpenSolaris has a completely >> different packaging and installation system, therefore LU is simply not >> relevant to it. There are NO redistribution issues with LU, there's just >> no point. :-) >> > > LU is not available as source due to licensing problems, and will > very likely never be available as source. See: > > http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ > > and click on the "Install" tab. > > The fact that the original LU was just a collection of shell scripts, > and that the current LU still consists of a large number of scripts > that are obviously shipped in a 'readable' form is unimportant in this > instance because they're shipped as part of software with a suitable > license. > > The previous poster's message (at least in this respect) was correct. > (I'm not sure where the statements about the system not being "safe" > came from, but they don't seem to be true.) > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3237 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/install-discuss/attachments/20090316/5bc9261f/attachment.bin>
