On 08/11/2011 01:40 PM, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote: > It's really depends on a corporate/organizational commitment to open > source to institute processes to keep all this stuff straight. (and > we won't even get into "open source" vs "able to redistribute")
There are profoundly incorrect views running around out there, as to what "open source" means. I had someone tell me that GPLv2 prevented distribution of binaries (it doesn't). I've watched people slap additional legal bits in conflict with GPL onto GPL source. I don't want to say "its a mess" but I do want to say that "there is a profound need for a very simple statement of what is and isn't allowed by each license." Including what is involved in altering licensing. While these are more or less amusing and some won't really result in court cases and precedents, there is at least one effort that has some nice potential to test GPL. See the zfs on linux systems. c.f. http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue I can't imagine this will end well for any company shipping this, in source, build script, or binary form. CDDL aside, Oracle's got some IP claims they could file, as well as other things. I can't believe that shipping NetBSD binaries with Oracle IP inside would end well either. -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Founder and CEO Scalable Informatics Inc. email: [email protected] web : http://scalableinformatics.com http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 fax : +1 866 888 3112 cell : +1 734 612 4615 _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
