Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha <anil@nexenta.org> 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
> delineation.
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
OpenSSL).
BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris?
http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/
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.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: