(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