Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] Debian with OpenSolaris: a broken dream]
- To: Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
- Cc: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] Debian with OpenSolaris: a broken dream]
- From: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:02:51 +0200
- Message-id: <20050907200251.GA31338@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <42E4BC38.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <42E664F2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:33:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Alvaro Lopez Ortega:
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> Some days ago I asked about the viability the idea of creating a new
> >>> architecture of Debian using the OpenSolaris stack.
> >> Just the kernel or libc as well?
> > That is something in which we will have to think if there isn't any
> > issue with the license. By the moment there isn't a detailed
> > technical plan over the desk, it is just a proposal. The first step
> > is to check if the CDDL meets with the DFSG.
> Ah, okay. A CDDLed libc is impossible for Debian because you can't
> distribute GPLed software that links to it. The operating system
> exception deliberately does not apply when you are distributing an
> operating system.
A new data point on this, i belive it will be an effort concerning only the
OpenSolaris kernel, with glibc and usual debian userland, exactly how the *BSD
kernels with glibc is handled.
This means that the only thing to consider is the freeness or lack thereof of
the CDDL, and comatibility with the (L)GPL is not problematic for this.
As i understand from previous posts here, the main problem was concerning the
choice-of-venue clause, not sure if the other concerns of the start of the
year did indeed change or not, as there where various variations of the