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