Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. andrew
On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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). > > Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be > considered free? > > andrew > > On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; > > > > The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section > > has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. > > > > | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > > | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > > | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any > > | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control > > | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special > > | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that > is > > | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major > > | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on > > | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the > > | executable. > > > > The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying > > to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an > > intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under > the > > GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're > only > > allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing > the > > software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run > > free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for > > derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. > > > > We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward > and > > were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which > > their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't > > use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are > > quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of > > using the GPL. > > > > > it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license > > > must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. > > > > If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's > > obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to > > derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and > make > > any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on > > anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; > > rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges > > that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to > > the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that > > under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the > > core requirements of the GPL: > > > > | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > > | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > | > > | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > > | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections > > | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software > interchange; > > or, > > | > > | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > > | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your > > | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > > | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > > | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > > | customarily used for software interchange; or, > > | > > | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer > > | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is > > | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you > > | received the program in object code or executable form with such > > | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) > > > > This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries > > linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible > > license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. > > > > -- > > Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Andrew Donnellan > http://andrewdonnellan.com > http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com > Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------- > Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au > Debian user - http://debian.org > Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 > OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net