Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc.
andrew
On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> 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).
>
> Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be
> considered free?
>
> andrew
>
> 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
> http://andrewdonnellan.com
> http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
> 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
>
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
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: