Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
I don't think so. The LGPL is compatible with almost all kinds
of provisions; that's what it was designed for.
___
I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue
clauses,
which seem so controversial for debian.
We do not object to them.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ?
Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the
FSF to do that.
That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of
the
kind that doesn't cause derivative work
But getting back to the main point: I don't think we're ever going
to agree on SW licensing philosophy, but I don't think there's any
way that OpenSolaris can be icensed under the GPL. The need and/or
desire to link with 3rd party code that may or may not be open source
Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting.
Indeed, the
cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case
for
compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses.
I agree. Solaris as free software will be much more useful if they
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered ethical ?
The GNU GPL is meant as a free software
