On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:07:37PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Joerg, we are sad to see you react in this way to this discussion - > > after all that is what it is. > > > > We actually think Sven is making some very important points about how > > developers feel about their contributions being used for different > > purposes. He is grounding his discussion in his personal experience > > and he has tied this directly to the topic. He was ask by Simon to > > offer his perspective on a Debian-Solaris menagerie. We think he is > > doing a good job. > > Let me add another statement....
You cannot leave it, can you ? > I believe that the fact that Sven is creating the impression, there are > unsolved probmlems with the CDDL, is causing damage to the OpenSolaris > project and maybe to other projects that use the CDDL. > > He has two basic approaches: > > - Telling people that you are not allowed to run GPLd software > on top of non-GPL operating systems or to ship both together > on a single medium. You cannot link GPLed software with GPL-incompatible system libraries, if you distribute said software together with the system libraries. This has been known for age, and Sun used to distribute gcc on a separate CD back then. The exact quote from the GPL is (End of clause QPL 3) : However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Maybe you can argue that shipping the GPLed executable and the incompatible system library on the same CD media is not the same as this "unless that component itself accompanies the executable", but i think you would have a hard time a judge of it, but then no wonder you are so attached to the choice-of-venue clause :) > If this was true, most operating systems (including all Linux > distributions I am aware of) would be illegal. Nope, since the System libraries of all linux systems are themselves GPL-compatible (this would be the GNU libc here), so there is no problem. > - Telling people that the CDDL is not accepted as true OSS license. > > In fact, the CDDL is accepted by both: OSI and Debian. You have already claimed that many times, that Debian has accepted the CDDL as DFSG free. I pointed out URLs of emails containing discussion over the choice-of-venue clause, and even though many participated (i counted at least 10 quickly in that thread i posted), you say this is the the objections are from a single poster on debian-legal. But i asked you already, do you have a reference to the fact that Debian did recognize the CDDL as free ? You failed to give such thing here. Anyway, this is my last mail on this topic, so don't bother replying me for now, unless i come with stronger argument after a sound discussion with the debian legal team. So, see you in a week or two, and try to not spread too much FUD in the meantime, Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
