Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:18 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:41:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:36 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:41:10AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 12:13 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > > > People have to ask for an account to find out how you're not violating
> > > > > the license on their code?
> > > > We wanted to get as much feedbacks about the layout,
> > > > contents, usability and features of the web portal
> > > > before opening it up fully to the public (scheduled
> > > > for mid-November, barring any unforeseen circumstances).
> > > > There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
> > > > web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
> > > > to be tested during this pilot period. We would be
> > > > more than happy to open it for the public now, but
> > > > we are aiming for a controlled test environment which
> > > > would be hard to achieve in such a case.
> > > > After all, everything there is powered by our stuffs,
> > > > and we have not had the necessary resources to make
> > > > sure that everything is well oiled. We'd be thrilled
> > > > to have you and others test that for us.
> > > > We'll be providing ISO images of our LiveCD and InstallCD
> > > > in the upcoming days (hopefully sooner rather than later)
> > > > via the web portal.
> > > This is a total non-answer. You won't even copy and paste the answer from
> > > your website to answer the question? You may have compiled a bunch of
> > > Debian packages, but you clearly don't understand what Debian is about.
> > in short, the answer on your "legality" question is in GPL itself. Look
> > for "executable runtime" explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin,
> > www.blastwave.org and others to exists.
> The words "executable runtime" are not present in the text of the GPL. What
> the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered
> part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is
> not distributed together with the kernel.
"""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
read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at