Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
- From: Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:04:38 +0800
- Message-id: <AANLkTi=1ZYkZ2KOnNRDVJXFwM51FHLaUX41bg9+Lemail@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=VyPNmbD5DCQi+ehDiAmExoe_eLdhxWQfiOE_0@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTi=SE93fTncDpnmqmM0Mfm_AGu+-eSdfjrZ0Siaq@mail.gmail.com> <20100809180225.GS31014@rzlab.ucr.edu> <AANLkTi=1G1STbfW_ziEuMpDySHOg8PLpQigBskj81_firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100812232136.GU31014@rzlab.ucr.edu> <20100902224530.GM22469@rzlab.ucr.edu> <AANLkTi=VyPNmbD5DCQi+ehDiAmExoe_eLdhxWQfiOE_0@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha <email@example.com> wrote:
> * I would like to understand further the rational behind using the
> "distribution of libraries" boundary at Debian project level, rather
> than at a package/binary level, which seems a more natural fit for
Simply because "accompanies" is open to interpretation. Clearly a
Win32 binary downloaded from ftp.gnome.org does not accompany
Microsoft Windows. It isn't quite as clear that an ELF executable in
the gimp binary package on a Debian CD does not accompany the ELF
executables in the libc6 package.
> * If we do choose the entire project as the boundary, then in the
> specific case of packages that are GPLv2 only (linking with libc), we
> have been considering building these with a statically linked, license
> compatible libc (one of the small implementations). I would also like
> to hear your thoughts on this as a technical/legal solution.
That sounds problematic to get right for every package in the archive
(I'm thinking about the license compatibility nightmares caused by
BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris?
Also, what would be the upstream of a possible Debian OpenSolaris
based port? I read that Oracle is closing down OpenSolaris and moving
development behind closed doors.