Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

[Alex Ross <alexross@gnusolaris.org>]

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 [1]. 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 [2], 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 [3]:

	"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 [3] and [4] by Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun.

[1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft
[2] http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
[3] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released
[4] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=21134&#21134

OK, now back to the original post, the only purpose of which was to submit a
patch. I guess, we'll try Debian BTS.

Thanks!
--
Alex
www.gnusolaris.org