[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

(d-l may give advice)

So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from
*every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc.
(the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one
copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible
as Sun wouldn't like it).

Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be
considered free?


On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> writes:
> > The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous;
> The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section
> has been well-understood and widely discussed for years.
> | 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 intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying
> to do.  This is not in any way an unintended consequence.  It is an
> intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the
> GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication.  You're only
> allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the
> software along with the OS.  That clause is there to allow people to run
> free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for
> derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
> We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and
> were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which
> their code was released.  If this is not what people want, they shouldn't
> use the GPL.  Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are
> quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of
> using the GPL.
> > it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license
> > must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.
> If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up?  It's
> obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to
> derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make
> any sense.  The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on
> anything else accompanying the binaries.  It is not even a restriction;
> rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges
> that this use does not qualify for.  It is a special exception, akin to
> the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that
> under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the
> core requirements of the GPL:
> |   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> |
> |     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> |     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> |     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
> |
> |     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; or,
> |
> |     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> |     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
> |     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> |     received the program in object code or executable form with such
> |     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries
> linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible
> license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements.
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org

Andrew Donnellan
Jabber - ajdlinux@jabber.org.au
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

Reply to: