On Dec 4, 2007 3:36 PM, David Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian, > > > I think that you need to remember that SXCE serves more than one > > purpose. One purpose is to serve as the base binary distribution > > system on which OpenSolaris development is based. > > In another thread, though, it appears that Indiana is meant to replace > SXCE... > > > This is required > > because not all of the consolidations have been open sourced yet, > > nor all of the code in the ones that have been open sourced. In > > this capacity, once Indiana is complete, this need will disappear. > > But why would this stop Indiana from being released, presuming Indiana > some form of Sun blessed products? Given that the current SXCE contains > this proprietary code and it can be obtained for free, so could Indiana > contain this proprietary code and be obtained for free. > > I don't see any technical or legal blockers to doing that unless Indiana > contains something that won't live with proprietary code (such as > something core that is GPLv?).
Actually, there are legal blockers to one of the primary goals of Indiana: * Freely redistributable Many components of SXCE while "free to download" can only be distributed by Sun under various restrictions. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
