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

Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> 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..."

That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the quite
elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this an attempt
at a retcon.  Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may be binding on
the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders who have licensed
their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think the restriction on
distributing GPL binaries together with a GPL-incompatible OS is a feature.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: