? 2008-05-28?? 09:12 -0400?James Carlson??? > 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.
James In this case, the extra library can be fully seperated from the core library if we look at it from the functionality perspective. Currently there's no project depending on the extra library. In addition, without the extra library, we can still understand the core library very well. So for this case, we will have the ARC review for the 'extra' library until the legal allows us to ship it. Jeff > > > > 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. >
