Thanks for your reply, :) On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:41:47PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ? > > Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the > FSF to do that.
Ok, i look forward to it, i will again run it through debian-legal too, and see what comes out. I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue clauses, which seem so controversial for debian. > That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of > the > kind that doesn't cause derivative work considerations ? I mean most of > the > userland runs as well on linux, and the interface between it and the > opensolaris kernels is clearly defines, so it would be no problem running > a > glibc based userland on top of an opensolaris kernel, even though the > CDDL and > the GPL are incompatible ? > > The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel. > People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined > program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary. Ok, this confirms my own analysis of this case. > Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL. Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ? Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
