Hi Alan, Yes, if the contents of your tarball match the contents of the debug version, it can be distributed using the OpenSolaris Binary License.
There are posting instructions at: http://opensolaris.org/os/projects/posting_instr that include naming conventions and information about the OBL - you need to include three files related to the license in the tarball. Thanks. Bonnie Alan Hargreaves wrote On 09/12/06 01:25,: > Bonnie, does this mean that if I create a non-debug set of closed > binaries and the file list in the tarball matches what Steve creates for > the debug version, that there should be no issue with me making them > available? > > alan. > > Bonnie Corwin wrote: > >>Stephen Lau wrote On 08/22/06 11:09,: >> >>>Rich Teer wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Alan Hargreaves wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Oh if only it were that simple. Unfortunately it's not. I've got code >>>>>working >>>>>for producing the bits, I need to keep testing each time a code drop >>>>>happens >>>>>(and I really need to test sparc properly), but other than that it's ready >>>>>for >>>>>code review. >>>> >>>>Given that (presumably) the Solaris bits are shipped in non-debug mode, >>>>can you please give us some more details as to why building the open >>>>bits in non-debug mode causes so much grief? I take it that it's not >>>>as simple as just changing an option in a Makefile... >>>> >>>>Curiously, >>>> >>> >>>Bonnie - are there any redistribution/licensing issues with building and >>>distributing non-debug closed-binaries? >> >>No. Licensing a non-debug version of the ON closed-binaries should be >>the same as for the debug version. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Bonnie >> >> >> >>>cheers, >>>steve >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>opensolaris-code mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code > > > _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
