Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Hi, I tried to download and run Live CD but without success. I think that collaboration of enterprise forces of Solaris-security,stable,expandableand usability of Debian platform is great idea. I'm a sys admin in Institute of Computer and Comm. Systems - Bulg. Academy of Science. Ourefforts /may group/ are in computer communications with Win and Unix/Linux platforms from one side. Another mainstreamis collaboration of Unix/Linux/OpenBSD platforms and Cisco equipment and softs - build gateways, firewalls and so on.I want to support Nexenta OS and if you agree with my possibilities, I'm readyto connect with development and test. Regards alexander kemalov
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: Here's the 2nd part of the answer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems? To which my answer was yes. I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse you in any way. Could you please elaborate why your answer was yes ? Having done that with Companion CD [1] (which is full of mostly GPL software linked against Sun's libc) for Solaris 8/9/10 Sun Microsystems, Inc is perfectly ok (except they calling it wrongly freeware [2]) because of GPL permits that [3][4]. That is not the problem (that's GPL being smart here), the problem is that I doubt CDDL 1.0 can satisfy Debian free software principles and rules, thus I doubt gnusolaris can be part of the Debian project, except if the copyright holders re-think the license of its the codebase and relicensed it as well. [1] http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/ [2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible P.S. I'd like to apologize being too impatient and replying to previous messages on that thread which have been already replied but missed by myself. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Friday 11 November 2005 21:19, George Danchev wrote: On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: Here's the 2nd part of the answer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems? To which my answer was yes. I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse you in any way. Could you please elaborate why your answer was yes ? Having done that with Companion CD [1] (which is full of mostly GPL software linked against Sun's libc) for Solaris 8/9/10 Sun Microsystems, Inc is perfectly ok P.S. I'd like to apologize being too impatient and replying to previous messages on that thread which have been already replied but missed by myself. Take a look at Anthonys mail and my reply, which explore this issue: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00753.html Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thursday 03 November 2005 21:25, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote: If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly. And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously. Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am one of them). So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us. We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious wars either. We are being responsible citizens. If the CDDL is compatible to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing* against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel and glibc over them. I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to do so legally. Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta Companion CD, if user wants to. To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian It is safer/wiser/saner to re-license you code under GPL or GPL-compat license. No sane person will use CDDL 1.0 licensed code, at least because of the funny patches like the choice-of-venue clauses. Patch your license or find already proven to be free one. community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. I highly doubt such funny ultimatum does matter ;-) Please read www.debian.org to get a notion how the Debian community works. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thursday 03 November 2005 18:45, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists. Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping issue. I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. Yes if there are license issues. If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD does NOT have any (free) license issues. CDDL 1.0 code has. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thursday 03 November 2005 22:26, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: It really seems like you jumped into this base our system on Debian thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed code. If you do not like CDDL license, it is your personal opinion. Nothing more. I do not like Linux GPL nature, this is my personal opinion too. Let's put personal stuff apart, but if you do not like GPL, why do not you pick a proven license as BSD. Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved. Wrong. Debian has DFSG which has been respected for many years now... and does not accept or scale with any seem to (not?)be almost like free softwarez or warez. CDDL 1.0 does not scale at all with the proven free software licences and needs to be re-thinked in its next version. See the related discussions in debian-legal@ for the previous 2-3 months. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:47:22AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Michael Banck wrote: Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation? And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg? Yes. At the time of writing, I assumed GNU/Solaris implied they'd use the GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it). cheers, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:40:34AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Frank Küster writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt, wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is neither incomprehensible nor gibberish. I do not comprehend what he means with CDDL works on a per-file basis, GPL does not. One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible licenses. The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and distribute the resulting executable. The GPL applies to the work as a whole. The relevant sections of the GPL are below; this trait is why people say that, even though CDDL is a copyleft license, it allows developers to create proprietary applications on top of the CDDL base. Sorry, but the relevant sections below do not belong to the GPL, but to the CDDL. 1.3. Covered Software means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. 1.9. Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following: A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications; B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License. 1.12. Source Code means (a) the common form of computer software code in which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included in or with such code. 3.1. Availability of Source Code. Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. Does this help? Michael Poole Thadeu Cascardo -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the time of writing, I assumed GNU/Solaris implied they'd use the GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it). Having downloaded their preview ISO: The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of GPLed material. When I queried this, I was told Our reading of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) tells us that we are fully compliant. Sun libc is exempt simply because it is (quote from GPL, Section 3) 'normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel...'. I've pointed out that the rest of that sentence rules out that line of argument, but haven't received a response yet. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Matthew Garrett wrote: Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the time of writing, I assumed GNU/Solaris implied they'd use the GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it). Having downloaded their preview ISO: The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of GPLed material. When I queried this, I was told Our reading of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) tells us that we are fully compliant. Sun libc is exempt simply because it is (quote from GPL, Section 3) 'normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel...'. I've pointed out that the rest of that sentence rules out that line of argument, but haven't received a response yet. Here's the 2nd part of the answer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matthew, snip Then again, there's the Solaris distribution from Sun Microsystems. Sun's JDS has gnome-about. Here's the linkage from Solaris Express (that comes by the way on a single DVD): # cat /etc/release Solaris 11 nv_16 X86 Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 01 June 2005 # which gnome-about /usr/bin/gnome-about # ldd `which gnome-about` | grep libc libc.so.1 = /lib/libc.so.1 libcrypto.so.0.9.7 =/usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.7 libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.7 = /usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.7 # /usr/ccs/bin/mcs -p `which gnome-about` /usr/bin/gnome-about: 2.6.0:JDS3:SUNWgnome-panel:i386:2005-05-16:supported The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems? Best regards! Nexenta Systems, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: Here's the 2nd part of the answer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems? To which my answer was yes. I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse you in any way. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
(Oh, and please don't see this as any sort of bias against non-Linux kernels or non-glibc systems - I spent quite some time working on a port of Debian to the NetBSD kernel, using the native C library) -- 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]
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 http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Henning Makholm: Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit anonymous changes. Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission. Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source. What is a trusted source? The copy shipped by Debian contains the following requirement: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here. It's not very productive.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Henning Makholm: Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit anonymous changes. Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission. Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source. The copy shipped by Debian contains the following requirement: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. You can satisfy this by adding a comment at the top: /* SEE HERE I changed this file on November 5th, 2005 */ There is no requirement at all that you divulge who I is. The meaning of the clause is simply that the recipient must be alerted that the file _has_ been changed. (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here. It's not very productive.) Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free. -- Henning Makholm Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no, all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free. This is, of course, a definition of free that's specific to some sections of Debian. It doesn't match the FSF's definition of free terribly well. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:17:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here. It's not very productive.) You can start CC'ing the conversation to -legal. Moving threads, in my experience, generally doesn't work; besides, -devel can handle the noise. Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free. It may be more productive to simply point him at one of the other seven or ten times someone has claimed this, and received the same response, and not waste time rehashing this again unless there's something new to add. :) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00826.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00242.html were easy to find, at least. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux Perhaps he meant that *reading them as criticisms of Linux* was disappointing. -- Chris. == Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Hubert Chan wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Explain please. Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. ... Only if you distribute a binary based on the changed foo.c. And only if someone asks you for the sources. If you keep the binary to yourself, you don't have to release anything. And you don't have to tell the original developers about your improvements either, even if you are distributing the code. You can let them search the *whole* internet to find the improvements if you want. --Ken Bloom -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ;-) This spares me an upload today... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. There's a major difference here. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt, wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is neither incomprehensible nor gibberish. I do not comprehend what he means with CDDL works on a per-file basis, GPL does not. One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible licenses. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Frank Küster writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt, wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is neither incomprehensible nor gibberish. I do not comprehend what he means with CDDL works on a per-file basis, GPL does not. One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible licenses. The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and distribute the resulting executable. The GPL applies to the work as a whole. The relevant sections of the GPL are below; this trait is why people say that, even though CDDL is a copyleft license, it allows developers to create proprietary applications on top of the CDDL base. 1.3. Covered Software means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. 1.9. Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following: A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications; B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License. 1.12. Source Code means (a) the common form of computer software code in which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included in or with such code. 3.1. Availability of Source Code. Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. Does this help? Michael Poole
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Wouter Verhelst: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Huh? Why do you think so? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. This is incomprehensible gibberish. This is unsupportable hyperbole. Erast's statement may be inapt, wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is neither incomprehensible nor gibberish. I do not comprehend what he means with CDDL works on a per-file basis, GPL does not. One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible licenses. The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and distribute the resulting executable. Sorry, I didn't imagine that a license with such a clause exists, and less that anybody would call it free. Thanks for the clarification, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Wouter Verhelst: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Huh? Why do you think so? Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Wouter Verhelst writes: Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. That's not true either. Any distributed changes must be made available to those to whom the changes were distributed. In practice changes usually become available to the community but that is not required. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Wouter Verhelst: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Huh? Why do you think so? Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language. I cannot find it there. Moreover, if it was in there, the GPL would fail the Dissident test and the Dessert Island test. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution. Why don't you use glibc then? Your problem would be solved. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD uses glibc according to their web site http://www.us.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ I would say that currently the common element to all Debian ports is glibc. Please don't repeat your comments about the CDDL being superior. Please give technical arguments instead. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux development model do not fit everybody's needs. Having an alternative I would rather hear of OpenSolaris's benefits in their own right, rather than just how it addresses alleged Linux deficiencies. I don't know what the alleged benefits of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD are either, but its developers haven't been telling us how it solves all of Linux's problems here. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Wouter Verhelst: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Huh? Why do you think so? Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language. I cannot remember to have read that. Perhaps you can cite the appropriate section. The only thing the GPL requires is that I do not further control the distribution of any file I gave someone else (except as far as controlled by the terms of the GPL). It does not require me or the other person to share the information with anyone else. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. There's a major difference here. Not even that! Any distributed changes must be given to the person you distribute foo to. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:49:35PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it apply at all. Complete bullshit. Get a life. plonk -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christian Perrier wrote: dpkg hat As for relicensing it, fuck off. I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment for the Sodomotron 2000. /dpkg hat ...which could certainly have been written: dpkg hat As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it. /dpkg hat I actually don't really see a reason for being so aggressive verbally with someone we (you) disagree with. Erast Benson has been polite all along this thread and I'm afraid that the above sentence can only help many people reading the thread to keep convinced that Debian people still need to grow up a little. This might be true; however, one needs to look past all the sweet talk and honey, at the meat of the matter. For this situation, there were very obvious and apparent attempts at at misconception of the debian populace, in an attempt to win favor. If I had my druthers, I'd almost say this was a hoax. It is in these situations, that one needs to see what is actually happening, and get the evildoer to leave as quickly as possible; feeding with honey words does not tend to have that effect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. There's a major difference here. Not even that! Any distributed changes must be given to the person ^ you distribute foo to. Not even that. They must at the very least be *offered*. [excerpted from GNU GPL v2] 3.b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and distribute the resulting executable. Sorry, I didn't imagine that a license with such a clause exists, and less that anybody would call it free. Come on, come on. The BSD license also permits mixing with non-free files and distributing the resulting executable. And that one's widely called free. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]: On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Wouter Verhelst: Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. No, that's not true. Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Huh? Why do you think so? Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language. I cannot remember to have read that. Perhaps you can cite the appropriate section. The only thing the GPL requires is that I do not further control the distribution of any file I gave someone else (except as far as controlled by the terms of the GPL). It does not require me or the other person to share the information with anyone else. The point which Florian was correcting, was that you only have to give source to people you give binaries to; changes which are not distributed don't have to be given to anyone. (If you're referring to back to the community, then you should have replied to Wouter's message, not Florian's. The correction being made in the message you replied to was *distributed* changes, so that's what you seem to be questioning.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
* Frank Küster: Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language. I cannot find it there. Moreover, if it was in there, the GPL would fail the Dissident test and the Dessert Island test. The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit anonymous changes.
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Scripsit Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit anonymous changes. Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission. Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source. -- Henning Makholm Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje, slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: Or, *freedoms*. If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their wares. Please wake up. :-) This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them. The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not and at which point? You seem to miss the point that software freedom is what Debian is all about. Please read http://www.debian.org/social_contract; you might then start to understand where we are coming from. Anything not falling within the scope of the DFSG is not of any interest. Your many (somewhat confused) posts seem to be asking us to be doing a lot of relicensing *for you*, but quite what we gain is not clear. Working on proprietary software is not what we do. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFDbAmlVcFcaSW/uEgRAr2zAJ9xEthUrpw6cpc7AxeHIsjDHIoQaQCgu+KV AqB9JJMCt3UmQksHJLhOnh4= =s/fj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thursday 03 November 2005 20.51, Erast Benson wrote: HW vendors will *never* open their IP in drivers. Ok, this becomes a bit OT here, but let me just remark that Linux today supports a *lot* of hardware, and that quite a few drivers (some RAID controllers, Intel SATA stuff, most of the S/390 and a lot of the HPPA stuff, I'm sure there's more) are actually actively supported by hardware vendors. So you seem to live in a parallel universe at least to some degree. -- vbi -- Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week * Patent Law, and how it is currently abused. * http://fortytwo.ch/opinion pgpfYbZmD9hLv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Friday 04 November 2005 19.00, Andrew Suffield wrote: Complete bullshit. Get a life. plonk Ahhh, yet another instance of asuffield. -- vbi -- featured product: GNU Privacy Guard - http://gnupg.org pgpToLVOlXVEk.pgp Description: PGP signature
GPL... (was: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program)
On Friday 04 November 2005 14.33, John Hasler wrote: Wouter Verhelst writes: Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. That's not true either. Any distributed changes must be made available to those to whom the changes were distributed. In practice changes usually become available to the community but that is not required. ... and it is also not required to make the changes available in a useable form. (/me remembers some Montavista hacked gcc for some embedded platform: I tried to forward port their modification once, but gave up because all they distributed was the complete toolchain source with no indication what upstream version, exactly, it was based on[1]. Legally ok, to the letter of the GPL, but totally useless beecause isolating Montavista's work was virtually impossible. I'm not picking on MV specifically here, it's just a good example from personal experience.) [1] nontrivial - I concluded that it must have been a CVS snapshot with some additional upstream patches applied. -- vbi -- Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro) pgpJ90YmDUABc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 09:54 -0800, schreef Erast Benson: On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Alex Ross: 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage. How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported GNU libc? all questions answerd on our web-portal. Yes, but they were just now asked here. Answering a legimate concern with a generic waiver that points to a web portal which requires a password to even _see_ content isn't what I'd expect from FOSS people. -- 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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson: GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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. *sigh* As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that clause (unless that...) very carefully. This clause was added to the GPL back when there was no totally free operating system yet, and people would need to install the GNU software on a non-free operating system. This would allow you to use GPL'ed software together with a non-free libc if you'd just install emacs on your Solaris, or so. If, however, you're planning to totally redesign Solaris into something containing glibc and emacs from the very beginning, then this clause does not apply, since the major components do accompany the executable. -- 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]
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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for download, so, one could try to install and see. Sun Microsystem's Solaris 10 binary release is available without fee, but it's not free as in Free Software (despite that the underlying source code is largely licensed under a weak-copyleft free software license, the CDDL). The Solaris 10 binaries license has some pretty fascinating usage restrictions, among other things (the normal download is a 90 day demo version with forced registration for real use, and it's non-transferable). You may want to read http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17 and http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/licensing/sla.xml to get a better understanding of the legal terms around Sun's Solaris 10 release. The relevant part is: In order to use the Solaris 10 Operating System for perpetual commercial use, each system running the Solaris 10 OS must have an entitlement to do so. The Entitlement Document is delivered to you either with a new Sun system, from Sun Services as part of your service agreement, or via e-mail when you register your systems through the Sun Download Center. Customers who did not receive an Entitlement Document with their new Sun system or through their service agreement must also register each system with Sun. In addition, if you install the Solaris 10 OS on additional systems, you must register those systems to receive an additional Entitlement Document. The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part of the Solaris 10 download process, with the Entitlement Document being returned to you via e-mail. For this reason, YOU MUST PROVIDE A WORKING E-MAIL ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR SUN DOWNLOAD CENTER ACCOUNT. If you fail to do so, you will not receive an Entitlement Document and will only have the right to evaluate the Solaris 10 OS for 90 days. Stuff like (c) You may not rent, lease, lend or encumber Software. (d) Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not decompile, or reverse engineer Software. (f) You may not publish or provide the results of any benchmark or comparison tests run on Software to any third party without the prior written consent of Sun. (g) Software is confidential and copyrighted. (h) Unless otherwise specified, if Software is delivered with embedded or bundled software that enables functionality of Software, you ma y not use such software on a stand-alone basis or use any portion of such software to interoperate with any program(s) other than Softwar e. (i) Software may contain programs that perform automated collection of system data and/or automated software updating services. System da ta collected through such programs may be used by Sun, its subcontractors, and its service delivery partners for the purpose of providing you with remote system services and/or improving Sun's software and systems. from the SLA's section on restrictions does not really sound like something I'd be interested in getting my hands on, gratis or not. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Wouter Verhelst writes: Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson: GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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. *sigh* As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that clause (unless that...) very carefully. There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause. However, given that source code is only required for *contained* modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable work itself. Given the usual treatment of ambiguous contract terms[1], the onus seems to be on the FSF or GPLed-work copyright owner to demonstrate that contains unambiguously includes references. [1]- Since neither statute nor case law has to my knowledge defined treatment of pure copyright licenses, traditional contract law seems most applicable. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL? I believe you've misunderstood Thomas. What Thomas is trying to get across, I think, is that whatever Sun does or does not do has little to no significance for your own case. In particular, but Sun does it too does not constitute a line of defense that would hold up in court, since it's up to the copyright holders to enforce their copyrights against violators, if and when they wish to do so. Please prove it. (better in court). Unless he is the copyright holder of a piece of code whose license is being violated, there is nothing he can prove in court. A third party whose copyrights are not being violated can't really do much. Save from alerting the copyright holders, which afaict from his mails Thomas already did. FWIW, GPL has been used to obtain injunctions against GPL violators in Germany, for example. And once you will prove it, I will belive you. Until that time, all this looks like another Debian's flame to me. or better... religious war. In which I'm not going to participate anymore. I believe you have a fundamental problem on your hands here: you are advertising your OpenSolaris based distribution as a Debian-based GNU-Solaris. I think your major problem is that your OpenSolaris distribution's distinctive feature is core integration of GPLd package management software written by Debian developers. Debian developers and debian-legal regulars have been pointedly questioning your understanding of the GPL, without getting adequate replies, afaict. If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson: GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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. *sigh* As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that clause (unless that...) very carefully. This clause was added to the GPL back when there was no totally free operating system yet, and people would need to install the GNU software on a non-free operating system. This would allow you to use GPL'ed software together with a non-free libc if you'd just install emacs on your Solaris, or so. If, however, you're planning to totally redesign Solaris into something containing glibc and emacs from the very beginning, then this clause does not apply, since the major components do accompany the executable. In fact, we did initial port of GNU libc to Solaris kernel. But we didn't see any points in continuing this, since SUN's libc and other core libraries are well tested and we wanted to be compliant with others OpenSolaris-based distributions. But one is welcome to start work on Solaris GNU libc port. This is 1+ year effort by itself. What we could do is: (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists. (b) to resolve the problem is to ask OpenSolaris community to change SUN libc to be dual-licensed. But possibility is very remote. any others ideas? Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists. Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping issue. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: any others ideas? (c) Have whoever is in charge of the CDDL remove the parts from CDDL that make it GPL incompatible in the next revision of CDDL. That should most of your problems at once. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote: If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly. And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously. Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am one of them). So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us. We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious wars either. We are being responsible citizens. If the CDDL is compatible to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing* against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel and glibc over them. I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to do so legally. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am one of them). So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping Drat. I mean I am one of the authors of GPLed package scripts, not that I am the author of any Debian-specific GPL software in the archive. Not that it matters much to the thread at hand. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists. Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping issue. I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thursday 03 November 2005 04.37, Erast Benson wrote: If don't, Nexenta will continue its way more like Ubuntu does. You'll hire heaps of Debian developers and actually pay people to contribute their stuff back to Debian? Now there's a thing! Which Debian developers are in your pay (just curious)? I'm always in favor of Debian developers being able to hack on Debian packages as their daytime job. -- vbi -- Jede Zeit ist eine Sphynx, die sich in den Abgrund stürzt, sobald man ihr Rätsel gelöst hat. -- Heinrich Heine pgpxw1MBQiRcn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the most part) don't see that as desirable. On a more practical note, the dpkg copyright file lists 24 people as copyright holders. Debian itself does not hold the copyright. You'd need to convince all of them to change the license. (Unrelatedly: I'm still waiting for a username/password for the gnusolaris.org site. How long should I be expecting it to take?) -- 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]
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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need ^ Trademark point. Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive? If you are not, you must not call this a Debian repository browser. Call it a .deb repository and a .deb repository browser. Debian is not a generic term. It refers strictly to the Debian Project or the system distributions made by it (potato, woody, sid, etc.). Debian package refers strictly to unmodified packages from one of those distributions. read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Pointing us to a password-protected website is inappropriate. -- ksig --random| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson writes: This should help FreeBSD ... non-glibc ports to suvirve. In what way does the GPL licensing of dpkg harm such FreeBSD ports? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause. However, given that source code is only required for *contained* modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable work itself. You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible terms. There is a special exception for some cases, but when that special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the compiled binaries section of the GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote: If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly. And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously. Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am one of them). So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us. We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious wars either. We are being responsible citizens. If the CDDL is compatible to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing* against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel and glibc over them. I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to do so legally. Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta Companion CD, if user wants to. To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta Companion CD, if user wants to. No. That is not sufficient. This would simply be a subterfuge. If you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still distributing the libraries along with the binaries. To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. You seem to think this is a disaster scenario. Debian is serious about license compliance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause. However, given that source code is only required for *contained* modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable work itself. You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible terms. There is a special exception for some cases, but when that special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the compiled binaries section of the GPL. My reading of the interface definition files clause is that it only applies to those associated with the modules contained in the executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the build scripts bit) for what actually goes into the binary. It is not clear to me that standard library header files qualify as associated interface definition files. Even if they do, the viral part of it seems to be abuse of copyright when applied to an underlying software library. Constraining the license of software that is: (a) in no way dependent on or derived from the GPLed work, (b) by design used by the GPLed work, and (c) would not be subject to the license if the GPLed work were on separate media is not what I would call proper or appropriate use of reserved rights, and I find it hard to believe a court would uphold the interpretation you propose. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the most part) don't see that as desirable. Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed. Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody (including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed back to the community. This makes CDDL much better than BSD and almost as better as GPL for what it was invented. So, CDDL will not stop progress of dpkg. Quite opposite in fact, it should speed up dpkg development since there will be more *payed* forces working on it and all changes to *existing* CDDL files will be contributed back to the community. That is why OpenSolaris CDDL'd kernel allowes HW vendors to hide their IP in their own proprietery files but at the same time forces HW vendors to contribute their changes to CDDL-licensed files back to the OpenSolaris community. This fact is a killer for Linux kernel. IMHO. Since Linux kernel suffers big time from not having wide HW vendors support. I have 10+ years of writing drivers experience for all kind of OSes, so I know what I'm talking about. HW vendors will *never* open their IP in drivers. Some HW vendors will never give NDAs for their user guides. So, GPL kernels will always suffer as the result it forces Linux community to reverse engineer binary drivers. Without user guides publicly available, those drivers will allways miss many features which M$ Windows users (as an example) having and enjoying using every day. The idea behind Nexenta OS is to bring GNU software to the level, when end-user will not suffer from GPL kernel *limitations*. On a more practical note, the dpkg copyright file lists 24 people as copyright holders. Debian itself does not hold the copyright. You'd need to convince all of them to change the license. I know that. (Unrelatedly: I'm still waiting for a username/password for the gnusolaris.org site. How long should I be expecting it to take?) We will send it to you shortly. Hopefully, now you understand why our Pilot program was a *good thing*. Without it, we could hit streets with unresolved legal issues. Now, when Nexenta team fully understands the issues, we will resolve them first and will make ISO images available for developers only by personal request. And once ISO polished, we will open them for public. Meanwhile I do not see any other issues why we should keep web site closed, so, we will clean it up and open it up soon. But ISO images will not be publicly available till all legal problems resolved one way or another. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to suvirve. Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now. ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help to resolve it. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My reading of the interface definition files clause is that it only applies to those associated with the modules contained in the executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the build scripts bit) for what actually goes into the binary. Right. It is not clear to me that standard library header files qualify as associated interface definition files. Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it covers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody (including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed back to the community. This is not what the GPL requires. You use the word exact in a curious way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. I'm getting really tired of this conversation going around in circles. I think that to avoid duplication of work, it would be wise for Sun to relicense OpenSolaris under the GPL. What? You don't think Sun would do that? Well, then why would you expect Debian to do something similiar? This whole thing has nothing do with Debian being serious about supporting non-glibc ports. Debian's goal is to produce a free operating system and make high-quality free software available for that operating system. Any discussion of whether we will generally support non-glibc environments is at best tangential. The only question at issue right now is whether you -- specifically! -- can use Debian's code in your particular non-glibc environment, Nexenta OS. Please don't mix issues like this! It only adds to the confusion -- or worse, creates the perception that you do not understand this distinction. It really seems like you jumped into this base our system on Debian thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed code. Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great opportunity. I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian. And that only happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through the DFSG. Think about it. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now. ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help to resolve it. If the authors of the GPLd software in question are going to insist on the GPL, which I think they are: consider, gcc, dpkg, and so forth, which are GPLd and whose authors are not going to bend; and if Sun is going to insist on the CDDL, then there may be no resolution. The licenses are incompatible. Unless one or both changes, there may not be a solution. It is Sun's desire to impose these restrictions on the copying of its software. It is the GPL's desire not to allow its binaries to be distributed unless restrictions like Sun's are absent. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great opportunity. I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian. And that only happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through the DFSG. Very nicely said. Thanks, Kenneth. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. I did a great deal of work on a non-glibc port of Debian. That wasn't a problem - the C library was under a GPL-compatible license. I've been waiting for a conclusion to the multiarch issue before pushing it any further. However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's just not something that Debian's especially interested in. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not clear to me that standard library header files qualify as associated interface definition files. Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it covers. Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I have to think the mere aggregation clause dominates. The other interpretation violates DFSG#9. [1]- Or on the same file server, in the same box, or whatever else qualifies as distributed together. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the most part) don't see that as desirable. Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed. Which would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg. I don't see how that helps. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast writes: But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. That's entirely up to the authors. You are free to contact them. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. Again you imply that the BSD license is not compatible with the GPL. It is. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. I'd say that sounds like a threat, but what would it be a threat of? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken. Thanks. Erast On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Erast Benson wrote: There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs, web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need ^ Trademark point. Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive? If you are not, you must not call this a Debian repository browser. Call it a .deb repository and a .deb repository browser. Debian is not a generic term. It refers strictly to the Debian Project or the system distributions made by it (potato, woody, sid, etc.). Debian package refers strictly to unmodified packages from one of those distributions. read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources Pointing us to a password-protected website is inappropriate. -- ksig --random| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not clear to me that standard library header files qualify as associated interface definition files. Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it covers. Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I have to think the mere aggregation clause dominates. The other interpretation violates DFSG#9. No, that's not right. You are thinking of this as a derived work case, and it's not. There is no claim here about derived works. I can say you may distribute my binary if you pay me $100. I can say you may distribute my binary but only if you pay John $100. I can say you may distribute my binary, but only if you never eat artichokes again. I can say, you may distribute my binary only if you distribute yours too. 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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has. Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes back. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has. Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes back. The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta Companion CD, if user wants to. No. That is not sufficient. This would simply be a subterfuge. If you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still distributing the libraries along with the binaries. Wrong. It all depends... 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 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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: It really seems like you jumped into this base our system on Debian thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed code. If you do not like CDDL license, it is your personal opinion. Nothing more. I do not like Linux GPL nature, this is my personal opinion too. Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved. Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now. ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help to resolve it. If the authors of the GPLd software in question are going to insist on the GPL, which I think they are: consider, gcc, dpkg, and so forth, which are GPLd and whose authors are not going to bend; and if Sun is going to insist on the CDDL, then there may be no resolution. The licenses are incompatible. today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution. Unless one or both changes, there may not be a solution. right. It is Sun's desire to impose these restrictions on the copying of its software. It is the GPL's desire not to allow its binaries to be distributed unless restrictions like Sun's are absent. Sun is willing to open *all* their code base. It can not do it in one day, this will take some time. Mostly because some libraries in OpenSolaris are not Sun copyrighted. libm is one cood example. Take a look on opensolaris's roadmap and how exactly they are planning to make opensolaris absolutely open sourced at some point: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/;jsessionid=700CF23476B8AA3331D46769AEC2EE33 Once it is doing, there will be nothing stopping Sun to make SUN libc dual-license. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great opportunity. I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian. And that only happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through the DFSG. Very nicely said. Thanks, Kenneth. And I respect Debian developers work. And wait when Debian developers will respect ours work too. Thanks. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it. I did a great deal of work on a non-glibc port of Debian. That wasn't a problem - the C library was under a GPL-compatible license. I've been waiting for a conclusion to the multiarch issue before pushing it any further. However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's just not something that Debian's especially interested in. ok not LGPL. LGPL is too restrictive comparing to CDDL. With LGPL one will not be forced to contribute its changes back. But with CDDL - you must contribute your changes back. It works similar to GPL but on per-file basis. If we could convince them that CDDL license is good enough to not give their work to proprietary projects and that proprietary paying workers will be forced to contribute back(under CDDL-terms), than they might accept dpkg to be dual CDDL-GPL. Maybe. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I have to think the mere aggregation clause dominates. The other interpretation violates DFSG#9. No, that's not right. You are thinking of this as a derived work case, and it's not. There is no claim here about derived works. I did not mean to bring derived works into the question; I agree that there is no present claim about them. Why do you think my line of argument is limited to questions of derived works? The two license clauses in question are these: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. and: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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. The first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works of an application that uses them. The C library header files are also in no way part of the preferred form for making modifications to the GPLed work. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the most part) don't see that as desirable. Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed. Which would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg. I don't see how that helps. It helps preserve dpkg progress and forces proprietary paying workers to contribute back to the project. 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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is to force developers do duplicate their work. It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has. Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes back. The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Explain please. Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be contributed back to the community. Also GPL-ed dpkg could be easily distributed as a binary if it is not part of the system. The way KDE and other GPL-ed software distributed in projects like www.blastwave.org, cygwin, etc. CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis. 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]
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's just not something that Debian's especially interested in. ok not LGPL. LGPL is too restrictive comparing to CDDL. With LGPL one will not be forced to contribute its changes back. But with CDDL - you must contribute your changes back. It works similar to GPL but on per-file basis. I think you need to reread the LGPL. If dpkg was relicensed under the LGPL, any modification to the dpkg code would still require modifications to be released in source form. However, it could still be used as a component in proprietary products, and people *don't want that*. If we could convince them that CDDL license is good enough to not give their work to proprietary projects and that proprietary paying workers will be forced to contribute back(under CDDL-terms), than they might accept dpkg to be dual CDDL-GPL. Maybe. In this respect, the LGPL and the CDDL are pretty much the same. Both permit code to be used in proprietary products while requiring that any changes to the licensed code be available. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
