>It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
>Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
>become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
>to everything.
libc is not an issue because GPL allows linking against it.
haveing a GPL'ed libc, however, is a serious problem because it
doesn't allow including non-GPL'ed code. LGPL'ed libc, maybe; but
OpenSolaris libc cannot be put on GPL or LGPL for the same reasons
as the rest.
>Because of the vagueness of the GPL's exception for system libraries,
>it's not exactly obvious under what circumstances (or if) it would be
>legal to distribute a GPL'd program, such as gcc, linked with the CDDL'd
>libc. That's a fairly important problem.
I don't think that's vague at all: you're allowed to link with
bits that are ordinarily part of the system.
>Some people have legitimate interest in both OpenSolaris and GPL
>software. It's a concern to those of us who do that there seems to be
>conflict.
I think Roy is merely pointing out that "OpenSolaris should be under
GPL" discussions and there derivatives ("CDDL is better than GPL",
"GPL is better than CDDL", "GPL is not free", "CDDL is not free")
are pointless and have no place on opensolaris-discuss because the
license situations is not going to change.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
