Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
(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).
Needs an exemption? Hmm... Here're a few links and some info, but first:
Disclaimer: This post *is not* an invitation for yet another GPL flamewar.
GPLv3 is available at . The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in
particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and distribute the
Program ..." During the discussion , Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the
Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be
interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting :
"Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the
issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any
kind of a problem even under GPL v2..."
More on the same at  and  by Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun.
OK, now back to the original post, the only purpose of which was to submit a
patch. I guess, we'll try Debian BTS.