J?rg Barfurth writes: > James Carlson schrieb: > >> Note: > >> The "extra" GnuTLS libraries -- which contains OpenPGP and TLS/IA > >> support, LZO compression, the OpenSSL compatibility library -- > >> and the self tests and command line tools are distributed under > >> the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (or later), therefore, > >> we remove them. > > > > Yikes. Subordinating system architecture and open source > > compatibility to legal review seems like a long-term mistake. > > > > I think use of the GPL for libraries is a special case here, as would be > use of any similarly 'viral' license, which places requirements on
I never mentioned any "viral" problems, and that's not the problem I have with this case. The problem I have is that a couple of random components -- ones that are in Solaris today -- were removed from this project because the upgraded license is now considered to be unacceptable. In effect, we're using legalese to determine system architecture, and I think that's a problem. Perhaps there's a reason why lopping off these particular limbs won't hurt anyone, but as a general principle, we're headed for trouble if we determine system architecture on the basis of what passes the lawyers. A better solution is to decouple these things: do the architectural review on the *whole* case, ignoring the legal questions, and then allow the project team to go off and do the legal review as a dependency for shipping. Otherwise, this looks like a preemptive strike. > > Is anyone looking at this problem? Or will Open Solaris (despite the > > best efforts of the Indiana team and the ARC "gang of four") just > > drift away from Linux as more things become GPLv3? > > > > Maybe we need a separate 'GPL licensed libraries and plugins' package > repository outside the 'core OpenSolaris' one, just as much as we appear > to need 'closed source bits and pieces' or 'other less well integrated That's still not the problem I'm citing. We have a high level directive from Tim Marsland saying that everything must be "familiar," which (as far as I understand it) means "the same as on some currently popular distribution Linux; probably Ubuntu." By hacking away components from what we deliver -- particularly doing so on the basis of a fear of GPLv3 -- we're failing to comply with that directive. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
