Nathan Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> > for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> > GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
> > subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
> > of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. The FSF will not
> > change that regardless of how many times the GPL is revised.
>
> They (FSF) should at least update it to address the common situation of
> linking with libraries for which source is available under licenses even
> the FSF considers free, but not GPL-compatible. The present situation is
> fairly stupid and self-defeating.
Why?
Please note that I did send a description on why I believe that
even GPL'd filesystems and other modules may be used in OpenSolaris
to RMS as a part of this duiscussion.
the fact that RMS did not reply: NO, because...
...but just send some pointers to FAQs and commonplaces makes it obvious that
RMS has the same impression as I have.
OpenSolaris is different from Linux (*) and as long as you do not try to
add GPLd code to "unix", "genunix" or "krltd" (the OpenSolaris kernel base)
or try to link or include GPLd code to other existing OpenSolaris modules
the act of loading/running a new kernel module (being under GPL) is
already covered by the 5th paragraph of §3 in the GPL.
*) Linux uses the user space linker to link modules against the kernel, Solaris
does not.
Even the other direction is possible and you may use CDDLs modules
in the Linux kenel:
Linux distributions already _do_ include closed source modules (e.g.
NVidia drivers). Using closed source modules from within the Linux
kernel is something that already needs an exceptional grant from
the Copyright holders that grants you more rights than needed to load
a kernel module being under CDDL.
Well, there is no explicit written permisson for doing so but what
the Linux develers do is called "concludent behavior" by the lawyers.
It is equivalent to a written permission and not having a written
permission is even better: A written permission could just mention
e.g. the NVidia driver, a concludent behavior includes a grant for all
similar cases.
> > OpenSolaris will never be under GPL because GPL is incompatible
> > with Solaris. OpenSolaris does not need to be compatible with
> > GPL because it is an operating system platform, not an application
> > that uses other GPL code.
>
> 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.
There is absolutely no need to do this because the GPL includes an exception
for all libraries and interfaces that are normally part of the OS.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
