+++ Sudhanwa Jogalekar [23/06/08 00:39 +0530]: >On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Raj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sunday 22 Jun 2008, Angad Singh wrote: >>> >>> There's a difference between "open source" and "FOSS" as is evident >>> and has been talked about a lot in the above discussion. >> >> Yes there is, and OpenSolaris is neither Open Source nor FOSS nor Free >> Software as of today. Please stop misleading the list. > > >By this statement, you are misleading the list. > > >As I mentioned in my earlier mail, Opensolaris is under CDDL which is >a OSI approved license. > >Read this to get clarification: > >http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/ > > >The binary licensing FAQ is here: > >http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/binary_licensing_faq/#what-bcl > > >The components not released as source are mentioned here. More or >less, they are some drivers etc. As such, in this context, if we take >Linux as FOSS, Opensolaris can also be taken as FOSS > >http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ >
Please use words carefully. Your misunderstanding or misuse of definitions is causing *you* to misleading this list. These are the facts as of now according to the official sources of Opensolaris. a) CDDL is an OSI approved licensed. b) The majority of OpenSolaris code is released under CDDL (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/) c) At present, the OpenSolaris source base is not enough to bootstrap an entire system (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/general_faq/#whatis) d) A part of the OS is still distributed under a binary licence - code, not firmware blobs. At present, Opensolaris is a+b+c which none of the Linux distros are. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ mentions the following which are currently not available as source (some which are not even planned to be made available as source): * Xsun server * TrueType font engine for Xorg server * Man pages I leaving out some which are evidently not owned by Sun. Some of us believe that a+b+c is not enough to call the distro as a FOSS distro (it is on the way there, but not yet there). Also, please stop making the case that CDDL being OSI compliant makes the whole distro OSI compliant - even the OSI team would have serious reservations if such misrepresentations are made. Please do not make incorrect comparisons with Linux distros, where non-essential packages are binary only and not installed in most distros by default. Let me repeat - on the way there != already there. - Sandip -- Sandip Bhattacharya http://blog.sandipb.net _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
