Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 12:45 -0800, Erast Benson escreveu:
> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.

I say let's reject it.

Let Sun do the rethinking.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha 
Debian:    *  



signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Erast Benson said
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > > it
> > > > stabilizes?  
> > 
> > > Yes.
> > 
> > Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> > DFSGs?
> > 
> > Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> > 
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
> 
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces

We do?  Where can I download it?  www.nexenta.com just points at
www.gnusolaris.org, but that page still requires http auth to see.

-rob
-- 
Yeaah, the hammer game!  Kill it, kill it, make it dead, whack it!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
> for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports
> possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
> be enough to make only dpkg software dual-licensed as CDDL/GPL.

So you are asking the dpkg copyright holders to change *their* licensing
to suit *your* needs? This is getting funnier and funnier.

Now here's the problem. Face it: there's no way you can convince all
dpkg copyright holders (and that's probably a lot of people) to
dual-license their code under a license that isn't even DFSG-free. What
are you proposing now to legally build a Debian OpenSolaris port?
(Yes, I'm asking just to know what weird idea will arise now.)
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Hubert Chan]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:17 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good ...


Please look up the meaning of acronyms if you intend on using them.  I
do not think it means what you think it means.

DFSG = Debian Free Software Guidelines
see http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

All software in Debian _must_ be licensed under a DFSG-compatible
license.  The question was whether or not Nexenta wants to be an
official Debian port.  If, as David suggests, CDDL is not
DFSG-compatible, this already precludes GNU/Solaris from becoming an
official Debian port.

This does not mean that Nexenta cannot work with Debian, or with Debian
developers.  (In fact, Debian generally wants Debian-derivatives to work
with them.)  But this means that GNU/Solaris cannot be an official
Debian port.

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.

Not every dpkg copyright holder is still a member of the Debian
community, so it's not something that the Debian community can decide to
do.

> CDDL will not allow to create proprietary dpkg without forcing
> proprietary workers to open up their changes back to the community. So,
> it is practically what GPL does.

CDDL allows people to build proprietary products that incorporate dpkg
code. That's entirely the point of making it file based. If dpkg is
released under the CDDL, I can build (say) a graphical installer that
incorporates dpkg code. I am only obliged to release the source code
of files that originally came from dpkg - the majority of my code can
remain closed, and not contributed to the community in any way.

Under the GPL, I would be obliged to provide source code for the entire
application. That's the important difference between the two, and that's
why dpkg is under the GPL and not the LGPL. It's a basic philosophical
issue, and has nothing to do with whether a port is based on glibc or
not.

In fewer words: dpkg is under the license it's under because the GPL has
the desired effects. The CDDL and the LGPL wouldn't, and so it's not
likely to be dual-licensed.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Erast Benson writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> >> > it
> >> > > stabilizes?  
> >> 
> >> > Yes.
> >> 
> >> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> >> DFSGs?
> >> 
> >> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> >> 
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
> >
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
> 
> The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
> thing.  It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
> those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
> much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
> have changed.  For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
> thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
> patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that?  Does Sun
> represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims?  What
> about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?

I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports
possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
be enough to make only dpkg software dual-licensed as CDDL/GPL.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
> 
> You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
> the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other than start enforcing
> it.

Apparently you misunderstood me.
All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.

CDDL will not allow to create proprietary dpkg without forcing
proprietary workers to open up their changes back to the community. So,
it is practically what GPL does.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Michael Poole]

Erast Benson writes:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
>> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
>> > it
>> > > stabilizes?  
>> 
>> > Yes.
>> 
>> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
>> DFSGs?
>> 
>> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
>> 
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
>
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
thing.  It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
have changed.  For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that?  Does Sun
represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims?  What
about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other than start enforcing
it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > it
> > > stabilizes?  
> 
> > Yes.
> 
> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> DFSGs?
> 
> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Matthew:
> 
> > > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
> >
> > Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> > But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.
> 
> So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use 
> the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you 
> can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things 
> on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required 
> web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a 
> password.
> 
> Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and 
> *then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be 
> using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing 
> portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.
> 
> I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that 
> you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of 
> Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)
> 
> -- vbi

acked.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[David Moreno Garza]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> it
> > stabilizes?  

> Yes.

Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?

Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

Cheers,

--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |  http://www.damog.net/
   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |  GPG: C671257D
  Chico Condesa: Pinche fresa mamón.

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> Matthew:

> > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
>
> Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.

So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use 
the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you 
can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things 
on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required 
web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a 
password.

Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and 
*then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be 
using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing 
portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.

I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that 
you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of 
Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)

-- vbi

-- 
Every bug you find is the last one.


pgptKazsi4CQu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
> fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
> "system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
> files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.
> 
> In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
> like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
> OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).

I'd like to specifically thank you for this contribution and many
others. You fed me with a serious deal of laughter and gave me a very
good day.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> > >
> > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> > >
> > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects 
> > > are
> > > similiar.
> > 
> > With the distinctive difference that:
> > 
> > The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> > Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...
> 
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.

Go find yourself a cluebat and hit yourself with it.

The BSD license is one of the most permissive licenses ever. It is
totally compatible with the GPL.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
NixSys BVBA
Louizastraat 14, 2800 Mechelen
T:+32 15 27 69 50 / F:+32 15 27 60 51 / M:+32 486 836 198


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > >> tracking system for development?
> > > 
> > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> > 
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> 
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

Oh, come on. We already have Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD.
The Solaris thing would hardly be the first non-Linux port.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not, and does not want to be, a Debian port.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of
>> "system runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as
>> per GPL).

> You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way.  The GPL does
> not speak of the "system runtime", and it does not say that those
> things don't count.  It says the don't count IF you don't ship the
> binary together with them.

Which, for full clarity here, this port would be doing (shipping the
GPL-covered binaries together with the GPL-incompatible libc).

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > > >> tracking system for development?
> > > > 
> > > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> > > 
> > > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> > 
> > on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> > centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> > re-consider.
> 
> We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion).
> Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to
> get them to the quality level needed for a stable release.  This lack of
> interest probably stems from a "Linux is OK for me" viewpoint rather than an
> "all these non-Linux ports are useless" opinion -- that is, apathy rather
> than malice.

OK. May be I used too strong wording.. One of consideration on why we
decided to go with Debian-technology at first place was the fact that
Debian *is* a "system runtime" independent project. At least it was. But
when we actually start looking into the details, we found it very
GNU/Linux-centric except some absoutely core packages.

> A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all
> sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian
> architectures cleans things up.

And I believe OpenSolaris community will benefit too.

> > on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> > not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...
> 
> It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian.  It's a derivative.  The question here isn't
> whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which
> you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian
> itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.

Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.

> > on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> 
> Yehah!  As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one
> of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level.  Being
> not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to
> rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in
> the embedded space.

true. there will be a lot of benefits for both communities.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > >> tracking system for development?
> > > 
> > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> > 
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> 
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion).
Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to
get them to the quality level needed for a stable release.  This lack of
interest probably stems from a "Linux is OK for me" viewpoint rather than an
"all these non-Linux ports are useless" opinion -- that is, apathy rather
than malice.

A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all
sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian
architectures cleans things up.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian.  It's a derivative.  The question here isn't
whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which
you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian
itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

Yehah!  As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one
of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level.  Being
not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to
rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in
the embedded space.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.

You are incorrect.  The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible.

> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). 

You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way.  The GPL does
not speak of the "system runtime", and it does not say that those
things don't count.  It says the don't count IF you don't ship the
binary together with them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Joshua Cummings]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> > >
> > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> > >
> > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects 
> > > are
> > > similiar.
> > 
> > With the distinctive difference that:
> > 
> > The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> > Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...
> 
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
> fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
> "system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
> files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.
> 
> In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
> like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
> OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).
> 
> Erast
> 
> 

IANAL by any means, and have never had much particular interest in
licensing issues such as these, but after maybe twenty minutes of
"research" it seems the BSD license as we know it today *is* compatible
with the GPL. The advertising clause that the FSF/Stallman/whoever had a
problem with, was removed years ago, and apparently the NetBSD project
is the only one still using a four clause version similar to the
original BSD license. If I'm wrong, please correct me, as this issue
does interest me.

I'm someone who has a big interest in projects such as Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD and have made small contributions along the way. I would've
liked to be able to say the same thing about Debian GNU/Solaris one day.
The techincal side sounds just as exciting, but the community and
marketing side of things is slowly turning me sour.



--
Joshua Cummings


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> >
> >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> >
> > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> > similiar.
> 
> With the distinctive difference that:
> 
> The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...

FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
"system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.

In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
>
>> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
>> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
>
> There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> similiar.

With the distinctive difference that:

The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
similiar.

Gruss
Bernd


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's 
> likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the 
> kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.

But only with the licensing question sorted out first.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> 
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's 
likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the 
kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not part of the Debian project.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

The different libc is more of a problem than anything else you've 
mentioned, but given Sun's claims about wanting almost all Linux code to 
build under Solaris, I don't think it's likely to be a big one.

Being part of the Debian project involves accepting certain 
responsibilities (such as a willingness to accept Debian policy, to be 
part of the release management process and to go through the new 
maintainer process if you want to be able to upload stuff directly to 
the archive), but means that you have a much larger set of developers 
working on your platform and gives you the right to advertise yourself 
as part of Debian. 

The alternative is to remain a separate Debian-based distribution, which 
means that users don't get the same assurances about quality control and 
policy as they expect from Debian itself. At the moment, your unique 
selling point is basically that you're Solaris except with more useful 
software and a better package manager.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Michael Banck wrote:
> >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> >> tracking system for development?
> > 
> > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> 
> It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> be a Solaris-specific issue.

on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
re-consider.

on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Matthew Garrett]

Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
>> tracking system for development?
> 
> No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.

It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
be a Solaris-specific issue.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Alex Ross]

Michael Banck wrote:

Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?


Yes.



Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it
stabilizes?  


Yes.


If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?


No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.



I suggest you discuss things on this list (if they are technical) or
debian-project (if they are non-technical).  This will make it much
easier for you to cooperate with the Debian project, if this is your
intention.


It is.

The only limiting factor is: the bandwidth. When we make it through the
Pilot and the first release, things will get easier, hopefully.

Thanks!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]