Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
Michael Pobega wrote:
From what I remember, OpenSolaris is distributed under the CDDL
license[0]. The license is actually written by Sun, and according to
the Wikipedia article The [FSF] considers it a free license
incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). I guess this
means that although it is free, it isn't free under GPL standards
(What other licenses are, anyway? I believe BSD it, but I don't know
of any others).
AIUI, BSD is not compatible with GPL.
IANAL
Mike
--
p=p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);};main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
Scribit Mike McCarty dies 03/04/2007 hora 20:19: AIUI, BSD is not compatible with GPL. Well, the FSF thinks it is. And says so on its website. At least if you're talking about the FreeBSD licence, aka 2-clauses BSD licence, or the modified BSD licence, aka 3-clauses BSD licence. The original BSD licence, with the advertising clause, is not compatible with the GPL, AIUI... Most of the other permissive licences are GPL-compatible: MIT, Boost, expat, W3C. Quickly, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:12:38AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote: Scribit Mike McCarty dies 03/04/2007 hora 20:19: AIUI, BSD is not compatible with GPL. Well, the FSF thinks it is. And says so on its website. At least if you're talking about the FreeBSD licence, aka 2-clauses BSD licence, or the modified BSD licence, aka 3-clauses BSD licence. The original BSD licence, with the advertising clause, is not compatible with the GPL, AIUI... Most of the other permissive licences are GPL-compatible: MIT, Boost, expat, W3C. http://www.debian.org/social_contract Towards the bottom is says BSD is DFSG compatible. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGEx3V/o7Q/FCvPe0RAv3vAJ48wO2PGJdUBJB3f0dhDi3QptFnEQCfV1sD PF/3ppLYi5I/G1uSwaipFvA= =sWf4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
Scribit Michael Pobega dies 03/04/2007 hora 23:39: AIUI, BSD is not compatible with GPL. [Debian's social contract] says BSD is DFSG compatible. Which doesn't mean it's GPL compatible. Correctively, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:26:17 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: The CDDL (used by OpenSolaris) is a license that is accepted as doubtlessly free by the OSS community. ... but GPL incompatible: From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. ..even Sun agrees here, and that IP policy is by design. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual property. ..for those interested in the finer details of these litigation traps, there is _extensive_ discussion over at http://groklaw.net/ . ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:07:47 -0400, Celejar wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:30:09 -0400 Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:14:34AM -0300, Bruno Buys wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. From what I remember, OpenSolaris is distributed under the CDDL license[0]. The license is actually written by Sun, and according to the Wikipedia article The [FSF] considers it a free license incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). I guess this means that although it is free, it isn't free under GPL standards (What other licenses are, anyway? I believe BSD it, but I don't know of any others). ..Sun people has gone on record stating this incompatibility is by design under a set of specific strategic litigation policies, AFAIUI from the rather extensive coverage at http://groklaw.net/ . The controversy section on the Wikipedia page may be the most informative to you, considering where you asked this question[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#Controversy IIUC, controversy over whether the CDDL is FSF / GPL compatible is at the heart of the removal of cdrtools from Debian and its replacement with that forked thing whose name escapes me at the moment. Joerg and ..Jörg starting a new thread with Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] reminds me of a picture taken of a C-130 approaching some Bosnian airbase, spraying strawman chaff to evade a missile hit. ;o) Roberto have battled vigorously over this here on this list (as well as on other Debian lists, according to Google). ..thank you, Roberto. :o) Celejar -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:14:34AM -0300, Bruno Buys wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. From what I remember, OpenSolaris is distributed under the CDDL license[0]. The license is actually written by Sun, and according to the Wikipedia article The [FSF] considers it a free license incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). I guess this means that although it is free, it isn't free under GPL standards (What other licenses are, anyway? I believe BSD it, but I don't know of any others). The controversy section on the Wikipedia page may be the most informative to you, considering where you asked this question[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#Controversy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
2007/3/30, Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... the Wikipedia article The [FSF] considers it a free license incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). I guess this means that although it is free, it isn't free under GPL standards No, GPL compatibility is defined by the FSF, as: This means you can combine a module which was released under that [compatible] license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program. (What other licenses are, anyway? under FSF's standards A LOT other licenses are free and many are GPL compatible also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruno Buys wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. Sort of reminds me of Freespire's license. Definitely not free, in the sense of freedom, but it is free in the sense of cost. Free does not always mean Open Source, which is what the GPL requires. Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDQ6xiXBCVWpc5J4RAqxeAJ9TY+9oRTwlcwI6/+jwyq0d+EJfRACeJQg8 G+2lACWB4kPzZK0Q2i8cgtE= =Gf0P -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
On 3/30/07, Bruno Buys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. The Wikipedia article on the CDDL does not mention such restrictions. Can you give us more information? Such as the text of the license or, if it has a name, its name? What you speak of does not seem like the CDDL. Perhaps Sun has devised a way to put the software under a free license but found a legal way to restrict its use. Like Novell. But perhaps you are just mistaken, and, frankly, I think it is more likely. The release of Solaris as free software was such an important event that if there were evil hidden restrictions in it, there would be a lot of noise in the free software community. -- Software is like sex: it is better when it is free.
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:30:09 -0400 Michael Pobega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:14:34AM -0300, Bruno Buys wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. From what I remember, OpenSolaris is distributed under the CDDL license[0]. The license is actually written by Sun, and according to the Wikipedia article The [FSF] considers it a free license incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL). I guess this means that although it is free, it isn't free under GPL standards (What other licenses are, anyway? I believe BSD it, but I don't know of any others). The controversy section on the Wikipedia page may be the most informative to you, considering where you asked this question[1]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#Controversy IIUC, controversy over whether the CDDL is FSF / GPL compatible is at the heart of the removal of cdrtools from Debian and its replacement with that forked thing whose name escapes me at the moment. Joerg and Roberto have battled vigorously over this here on this list (as well as on other Debian lists, according to Google). Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. You did confuse terms. I don't know what you did install (most likely Solaris 10 or Solaris Express - the latter is the Solaris 11 betas) You did not install OpenSolaris, you simply can't as you cannot install Linux. You did rather install a Solaris distribution. If it shows something like: #uname -a SunOS opt 5.11 snv_xx i86pc i386 i86pc then the Solaris distribution you did install was OpenSolaris _based_. OpenSolaris is (in contrary to Linux) a complete OS like e.g. FreeBSD, it is however not a distribution that may be installed. You need to add a few things even to make a simple installable OS distribution. Sun Solaris is free but not as free as free beer as you need to pesonally aggree on the license (which is needed because Sun still needs to pay for some of the added software). Sun still gives you more freedom than e.g. Intel as Sun allows you to compile software you like to sell using the Sun Studio Compiler, Intel does not ;-) The Sun Studio compiler will be OpenSource in the near future, the Intel compiler most likely not. There are other OpenSolaris based distributions (e.g. SchilliX) that add different code in order to make an installable distribution. For this reason SchilliX is free software _and_ completely freely redistributable. Although you are not allowed to redistribute Sun Solaris, you still may do anything you like with Sun Solaris, you may even use it for commercial purposes. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. OpenSolaris uses an enhanced version of grub (Linux boots from the Solaris grub, but Solaris does not boot from the unmodified grub found on Linux distriibutions). OpenSolaris does not include gnome, Sun Solaris does. Sun is the biggest contributor for the gnome project, do you see a problem? are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? The Debian distribution uses a lot of free software from Sun. In fact, 28% of the Debian distribution is from Sun (3x more than RedHat contributed and 5x more than IBM contributed). Do you see a licence conflict in Debian? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. If it helps, OpenSolaris is a really free project. Sun did follow my advise from November 2004 and we now have a OpenSolaris constitution as well as a OpenSolaris Government Board. OpenSolaris is not controlled by Sun but by the OGB. This makes OpenSolaris easier to deal with than the Linux Kernel that depends on a single person that controls what goes in and what not. The CDDL (used by OpenSolaris) is a license that is accepted as doubtlessly free by the OSS community. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
Joerg Schilling wrote: From time to time I grab a diferent OS to install and try my hands at it. This time was OpenSolaris. The thing is, at some point in the install, OpenSolaris throws a license at my face that doesn't seem open at all. I can run the software, but I can't redistribute, copy, etc. I am no law expert, but that license doesn't seem really open or free. You did confuse terms. I don't know what you did install (most likely Solaris 10 or Solaris Express - the latter is the Solaris 11 betas) You did not install OpenSolaris, you simply can't as you cannot install Linux. You did rather install a Solaris distribution. If it shows something like: #uname -a SunOS opt 5.11 snv_xx i86pc i386 i86pc then the Solaris distribution you did install was OpenSolaris _based_. OpenSolaris is (in contrary to Linux) a complete OS like e.g. FreeBSD, it is however not a distribution that may be installed. You need to add a few things even to make a simple installable OS distribution. Sun Solaris is free but not as free as free beer as you need to pesonally aggree on the license (which is needed because Sun still needs to pay for some of the added software). Sun still gives you more freedom than e.g. Intel as Sun allows you to compile software you like to sell using the Sun Studio Compiler, Intel does not ;-) The Sun Studio compiler will be OpenSource in the near future, the Intel compiler most likely not. There are other OpenSolaris based distributions (e.g. SchilliX) that add different code in order to make an installable distribution. For this reason SchilliX is free software _and_ completely freely redistributable. Although you are not allowed to redistribute Sun Solaris, you still may do anything you like with Sun Solaris, you may even use it for commercial purposes. As far as I could tell, at least grub and (a javified version of) gnome are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. OpenSolaris uses an enhanced version of grub (Linux boots from the Solaris grub, but Solaris does not boot from the unmodified grub found on Linux distriibutions). OpenSolaris does not include gnome, Sun Solaris does. Sun is the biggest contributor for the gnome project, do you see a problem? are free, and OpenSolaris is using it. Maybe it uses other free software. So, doesn't that license conflicts with the gpl? The Debian distribution uses a lot of free software from Sun. In fact, 28% of the Debian distribution is from Sun (3x more than RedHat contributed and 5x more than IBM contributed). Do you see a licence conflict in Debian? Its not to flame Sun, I know the company has contributed a lot with the community, and many folks respects them. Just trying to get things clearer. If it helps, OpenSolaris is a really free project. Sun did follow my advise from November 2004 and we now have a OpenSolaris constitution as well as a OpenSolaris Government Board. OpenSolaris is not controlled by Sun but by the OGB. This makes OpenSolaris easier to deal with than the Linux Kernel that depends on a single person that controls what goes in and what not. The CDDL (used by OpenSolaris) is a license that is accepted as doubtlessly free by the OSS community. Jörg Jorg and others, It does help very much, thanks. I checked and what I have here is Sun Solaris, not OpenSolaris. So, my apologies to the project. I didn't see there was a difference between Solaris released freely (with some restrictions) by Sun and OpenSolaris. I thought they were the same thing. That said, my doubt is about Sun or any other company (doesn't really matter which one) releasing gpl'ed software with additional restrictions. Isn't that the 'viral' aspect of the gpl? That you cannot impose additional restrictions when redistributing the software? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] How much open is OpenSolaris?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: The CDDL (used by OpenSolaris) is a license that is accepted as doubtlessly free by the OSS community. ... but GPL incompatible: From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term intellectual property. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
