Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)
- From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:32:11 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87fwwhk7tw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
- In-reply-to: <20100924001854.GK6180@teltox.donarmstrong.com> (Don Armstrong's message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:18:54 -0700")
- References: <AANLkTi=SE93fTncDpnmqmM0Mfm_AGu+-eSdfjrZ0Siaq@mail.gmail.com> <20100809180225.GS31014@rzlab.ucr.edu> <AANLkTi=1G1STbfW_ziEuMpDySHOg8PLpQigBskj81_+c@mail.gmail.com> <20100812232136.GU31014@rzlab.ucr.edu> <20100902224530.GM22469@rzlab.ucr.edu> <87k4mdhe2q.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20100924001854.GK6180@teltox.donarmstrong.com>
* Don Armstrong:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Don Armstrong:
>>
>> > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
>>
>> I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library
>> exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems.
>
> It's intended for cases where you're running a GPLed work on a system
> which is GPL-incompatible.
Not in this generality. We aren't allowed to link GPLed software to
OpenSSL, after all.
>> The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible
>> (although it is not clear if the license overview was thoroughly
>> updated for GPL version 3).
>
> They're referring to the common case where the System Library
> exception is not invoked.
And we can't use that, as we've seen with OpenSSL.
> My suggestion was to link GPLed binaries to such a libc which
> circumvents most of these problems. However, because of design
> considerations, the libc<->kernel interface is not as stable in SunOS
> as it is in linux, which makes this a long-term labor intensive
> process.
Oh. I expected the interface to be extremely stable in the
foreseeable future. 8-/
Reply to: