Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 09:54 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Alex Ross:
> > 
> > > 2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
> > 
> > How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute
> > software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is
> > linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL?  Have you ported
> > GNU libc?
> 
> all questions answerd on our web-portal.

Yes, but they were just now asked here.

Answering a legimate concern with a generic waiver that points to a web
portal which requires a password to even _see_ content isn't what I'd
expect from FOSS people.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> GPL:
> 
> """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."""

*sigh*

As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute
the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that
clause ("unless that...") very carefully.

This clause was added to the GPL back when there was no totally free
operating system yet, and people would need to install the GNU software
on a non-free operating system. This would allow you to use GPL'ed
software together with a non-free libc if you'd just install emacs on
your Solaris, or so.

If, however, you're planning to totally redesign Solaris into something
containing glibc and emacs from the very beginning, then this clause
does not apply, since the "major components" do "accompany the
executable".

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Peter Samuelson
> [Henning Makholm]

> > Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
> > debconf questions is policy-buggy?

> 'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
> files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals.  Editing
> a conffile at install time makes no sense.

Of course it would have to be done a preinst time, before dpkg starts
unpacking the new version.

> If you want to edit a configuration file, don't ship it as a
> conffile - in fact, don't ship it at all.

You seem to be missing the entire context of the conversation. Please
read back in the thread.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "What has it got in its pocketses?"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Peter Samuelson]
> 'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
> files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals.  Editing
> a conffile at install time makes no sense.  If you want to edit a
> configuration file, don't ship it as a conffile - in fact, don't ship
> it at all.  Either generate it ex nihilo from a script, or if you feel
> you need a template, ship the template under another name, to be copied
> from if the file doesn't already exist.

Or even better, ship the defaults in /usr/share/, load them from there
and load overrides from /etc/ if a file exist there.  If you want the
package to have install time defaults, generate the file in /etc/
based on install time input.  This way you can handle upgrades
gracefully when changing the defaults, without loosing local
configuration overrides.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: todos: command not found

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh):
> Le 02.11.2005 22:20:15, João Silva a écrit :
> > Anyone knows what package brings the todos command?
> > I had this error in a debian-cd try:
> > tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found
> 
> sysutils
> 
> try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin'

Searching for 'todo' (as in, a todo list) or 'todos' (which happens to
be a rather common spanish word) rarely ends you up with the "to DOS"
utility, unfortunately.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Alex Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > >> tracking system for development?
> > > 
> > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> > 
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> 
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

Oh, come on. We already have Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD.
The Solaris thing would hardly be the first non-Linux port.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not, and does not want to be, a Debian port.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> > >
> > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> > >
> > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects 
> > > are
> > > similiar.
> > 
> > With the distinctive difference that:
> > 
> > The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> > Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...
> 
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.

Go find yourself a cluebat and hit yourself with it.

The BSD license is one of the most permissive licenses ever. It is
totally compatible with the GPL.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
NixSys BVBA
Louizastraat 14, 2800 Mechelen
T:+32 15 27 69 50 / F:+32 15 27 60 51 / M:+32 486 836 198


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:20:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> Second, thanks to some enhancements Ryan Murray has recently made to
> buildd/wanna-build, it is now possible for the release team to
> request automated buildd binNMUs of a package across all
> architectures for library transitions, sparing maintainers the
> trouble of doing rebuild-only sourceful uploads.

Do the maintainers themselves have a way to trigger that, or do they
have to email the release team? If not, and if possible, I think it
would be a good idea to make it possible (and per-arch, too, while we
are at it).

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: todos: command not found

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh):

>> try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin'

> Searching for 'todo' (as in, a todo list) or 'todos' (which happens to
> be a rather common spanish word) rarely ends you up with the "to DOS"
> utility, unfortunately.

There are only 21 matches for 'todos' in the unstable Contents-i386.gz.
That is hardly too much to scan through by eye.

-- 
Henning Makholm "The practical reason for continuing our
  system is the same as the practical reason
  for continuing anything: It works satisfactorily."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: is the Debian mail server healthy?

[Santiago Vila]

The problem is still here:

Received: from sanvila by master.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1EXVub-0007ob-00; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:37:13 -0600
Received: from spohr.debian.org [140.211.166.43]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ESyC9-00044c-00; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:48:33 -0500
Received: from debbugs by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ESyC9-00028p-00; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:48:33 -0700

This is a mail I received from the BTS about Bug #46403.

Any debian-admin reading this, or somebody who is able to contact them?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)

[Nick Jacobs]

In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
the 99.9% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
better?

Sometimes, reading Debian mailing lists, I get the
impression that I've wandered into a painting by
Salvador Dali.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)

[Bastian Venthur]

Nick Jacobs wrote:

> In-Reply-To=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
> the 99.9% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
> better?

Maybe renaming Debians "i386" into something more accurate like "x86" or
even "IA32" (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like this
in the future?


Kind reagards

Bastian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386

[Florian Weimer]

* Nick Jacobs:

> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> significant amount of work should be done to restore
> support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> for 10 years?

I think AMD still makes them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: todos: command not found

[João Silva]

No, todos command is in the sysutils package. Todos means to do or something like next
steps :) I also resolved this problema, thanks to all.On 11/3/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh):> Le 02.11.2005
 22:20:15, João Silva a écrit :> > Anyone knows what package brings the todos command?> > I had this error in a debian-cd try:> > tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found>
> sysutils>> try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin'Searching for 'todo' (as in, a todo list) or 'todos' (which happens tobe a rather common spanish word) rarely ends you up with the "to DOS"
utility, unfortunately.--The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on thepavement is precisely one bananosecond-- Cumprimentos,
João Carlos Galaio da Silva

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Dalibor Topic]

Erast Benson wrote:
 btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for

download, so, one could try to install and see.



Sun Microsystem's Solaris 10 binary release is available without fee, 
but it's not free as in Free Software (despite that the underlying 
source code is largely licensed under a weak-copyleft free software 
license, the CDDL).


The Solaris 10 binaries license has some pretty fascinating usage 
restrictions, among other things (the normal download is a 90 day demo 
version with forced registration for real use, and it's non-transferable).


You may want to read 
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17 and 
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/licensing/sla.xml to get a better 
understanding of the legal terms around Sun's Solaris 10 release.


The relevant part is:

"In order to use the Solaris 10 Operating System for perpetual 
commercial use, each system running the Solaris 10 OS must have an 
entitlement to do so. The Entitlement Document is delivered to you 
either with a new Sun system, from Sun Services as part of your service 
agreement, or via e-mail when you register your systems through the Sun 
Download Center. Customers who did not receive an Entitlement Document 
with their new Sun system or through their service agreement must also 
register each system with Sun. In addition, if you install the Solaris 
10 OS on additional systems, you must register those systems to receive 
an additional Entitlement Document.


The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part of 
the Solaris 10 download process, with the Entitlement Document being 
returned to you via e-mail. For this reason, YOU MUST PROVIDE A WORKING 
E-MAIL ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR SUN DOWNLOAD CENTER ACCOUNT. If you fail 
to do so, you will not receive an Entitlement Document and will only 
have the right to evaluate the Solaris 10 OS for 90 days."


Stuff like

"(c) You may not rent, lease, lend or encumber Software."

"(d) Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not 
decompile, or reverse engineer Software."


"(f) You may not publish or provide the results of any benchmark or 
comparison tests run on Software to any third party without the prior 
written consent of Sun."


"(g) Software is confidential and copyrighted."

"(h) Unless otherwise specified, if Software is delivered with embedded 
or bundled software that enables functionality of Software, you ma y not 
use such software on a stand-alone basis or use any portion of such 
software to interoperate with any program(s) other than Softwar e."


"(i) Software may contain programs that perform automated collection of 
system data and/or automated software updating services. System da ta 
collected through such programs may be used by Sun, its subcontractors, 
and its service delivery partners for the purpose of providing you with 
remote system services and/or improving Sun's software and systems."


from the SLA's section on restrictions does not really sound like 
something I'd be interested in getting my hands on, gratis or not.


cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

[Frank Küster]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
>>> debconf questions is policy-buggy?
>
>> Of course, see 10.7.3:
>
>> | These two styles of configuration file handling must not be mixed, for
>> | that way lies madness: dpkg will ask about overwriting the file every
>> | time the package is upgraded.
>> `
>
> This rationale does not apply to the case we are discussing.

Why do you think that?  There are four versions of the conffile that we
have to consider:

1 The version delivered in the old deb
2 The version present on the system before the upgrade
3 The version delivered in the new deb
4 The version produced by the postinst editing action

Right before the postinst is run, version 1 has disappeared, 2 is still
in its place (we are talking about the situation where the admin refused
to accept the changes, and also didn't edit the file), and 3 is
available as *.dpkg-new.  The postinst script would remove (or rename)
version 2 and produce version 4.  dpgk does not know about this version,
and this is exactly the problem outlined in the policy - or what am I
missing? 

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Re: postinst scripts failing because a new conffile wasn't accepted: Is it a bug?

[Frank Küster]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Scripsit Peter Samuelson
>> [Henning Makholm]
>
>> > Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
>> > debconf questions is policy-buggy?
>
>> 'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
>> files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals.  Editing
>> a conffile at install time makes no sense.
>
> Of course it would have to be done a preinst time, before dpkg starts
> unpacking the new version.

This would circumvent the "ask again" problem, but I think it is still
problematic: The admin is shown a diff between the new conffile and the
present conffile, but only the unimportant changes are shown, while the
important change has already been done by the preinst script.  This is
confusing - especially if the admin remembers his old file, or if one of
the unimportant changes is a change in a comment that says how important
the new setting is...


>> If you want to edit a configuration file, don't ship it as a
>> conffile - in fact, don't ship it at all.
>
> You seem to be missing the entire context of the conversation. Please
> read back in the thread.

No, I think he simply missed the idea of doing the editing in preinst,
just like me - you never mentioned it before.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Wouter Verhelst writes:

> Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
>> GPL:
>> 
>> """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."""
>
> *sigh*
>
> As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute
> the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that
> clause ("unless that...") very carefully.

There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable
work itself.

Given the usual treatment of ambiguous contract terms[1], the onus
seems to be on the FSF or GPLed-work copyright owner to demonstrate
that "contains" unambiguously includes "references".

[1]- Since neither statute nor case law has to my knowledge defined
treatment of "pure copyright licenses", traditional contract law seems
most applicable.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Dalibor Topic]

Erast Benson wrote:

But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL?


I believe you've misunderstood Thomas.

What Thomas is trying to get across, I think, is that whatever Sun does 
or does not do has little to no significance for your own case. In 
particular, "but Sun does it too" does not constitute a line of defense 
that would hold up in court, since it's up to the copyright holders to 
enforce their copyrights against violators, if and when they wish to do so.



Please prove it. (better in court).


Unless he is the copyright holder of a piece of code whose license is 
being violated, there is nothing he can prove in court. A third party 
whose copyrights are not being violated can't really do much. Save from 
alerting the copyright holders, which afaict from his mails Thomas 
already did.


FWIW, GPL has been used to obtain injunctions against GPL violators in 
Germany, for example.



And once you will prove it, I will
belive you. Until that time, all this looks like another Debian's flame
to me. or better... religious war. In which I'm not going to participate
anymore.


I believe you have a fundamental problem on your hands here: you are 
advertising your OpenSolaris based distribution as a Debian-based 
GNU-Solaris.


I think your major problem is that your OpenSolaris distribution's 
distinctive feature is core integration of GPLd package management 
software written by Debian developers. Debian developers and 
debian-legal regulars have been pointedly questioning your understanding 
of the GPL, without getting adequate replies, afaict.


If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest 
to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the 
license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.


cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
> fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
> "system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
> files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.
> 
> In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
> like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
> OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).

I'd like to specifically thank you for this contribution and many
others. You fed me with a serious deal of laughter and gave me a very
good day.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Dependencies of -dev packages

[Gabor Gombas]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:15:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Speaking as a co-maintainer of libkrb5-dev, no, this Conflicts assumes
> that the two packages, er, conflict.  Namely, they provide
> identically-named include files which define different ways of
> implementing roughly the same API.  I'd love to have heimdal-dev and
> libkrb5-dev peacefully coexist since I personally use both, but since they
> both implement the same API, this is rather difficult to do.

Having the same API is not a problem as long as I can select (using
appropriate -I and -L options) which one do I want.

> Please note that using pbuilder works around this issue fairly well for
> building Debian packages, although I realize that this is far from solving
> every application.

But that does not work well in a multi-user environment. Requiring every
user to have a separate pbuilder environment so they can use their
preferred Kerberos implementation requires a lot of extra disk space,
I/O bandwidth, memory and CPU power. Also, pbuilder might not be that
useful for people working on software that is not Debianized.

> I don't consider this to be a good solution.  #include  is part of
> the API, and forcing all packages that want to build with Kerberos to use
> special compiler flags to find include files in non-standard locations
> seems to me to defeat the entire point of the FHS.

This is nonsense. People using other OSes routinely build software at
non-standard locations and they do not have any "API" issues at all.
Furthermore, any Kerberos-using application should already use
krb5-config to determine the neccessary compiler and linker flags,
otherwise the application is already buggy as it will not build
correctly on many non-Linux systems where Kerberos is not installed at a
system location.

Also, I do not see any FHS issues here. Heimdal installing headers under
/usr/include/heimdal-krb5 (and .so links under /usr/lib/heimdal-krb5)
while MIT Kerberos installing headers under /usr/include/mit-krb5 (and
.so links under /usr/lib/mit-krb5) is fully FHS-compliant.

> (I didn't think separating the libraries was necessary; don't they use
> non-conflicting names already?)

Which separation do you think of? Both heimdal-dev and libkrb5-dev
contain the /usr/lib/libkrb5.so symlink, so they do conflict unless that
link is moved to some other place.

> The only solution that seems feasible to me would be using alternatives
> for all of the conflicting header files, and that solution doesn't exactly
> fill me with glee.

No. As I said krb5-config is already part of the Kerberos build
interface so you only need alternatives for krb5-config.

> I would also question whether running
> update-alternatives is really that much easier than simply installing the
> other -dev package and letting aptitude do its thing.

What do you mean by "letting aptitude do its thing"? aptitude would
_remove_ the other -dev package and that is _exactly_ what I have
problem with.

Gabor

-- 
 -
 MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

[Gabor Gombas]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Rolf Kutz wrote:

> The admin should know whether he messed with the
> account and if he did just remove the package
> instead of purging it. It's not like packages get
> purged by themself.

Messing with the _account_ is not the same as messing with config files.
Give me a dpkg option that removes all config files but still leaves the
account alone, and I'll be happy.

You can at least see _some_ of the config files that will be removed
using "dpkg -L" but there is no way to get a list of users/groups that
will be removed by --purge.

Gabor

-- 
 -
 MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bits from the release team: the plans for etch

[Gabor Gombas]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:21:13PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:

> An other issue that always annoyed me is that assuming a NIS server
> and a NIS client which both install say exim.  I want to give some
> users membership in the group Debian-exim.  I can't easily.
> 
> The UID picked by Debian-exim is not going to be the same for the NIS
> server and all the NIS clients, so I cannot get it propagated by NIS.
> And I don't want to have to maintain the group membership on all the
> clients.

That is a local administration decision. You should have a clear policy
wether you'll be allowing system groups in NIS _before_ creating the NIS
domain. If you do, you should have a plan _before_ creating the NIS
domain about how you will deal with the inevitable conflicts.

When I last administered a complex distributed environment (we used
first NIS+ then LDAP, but that's not important), we had a policy that
local software should never use user/group IDs coming from NIS+/LDAP,
and software installed on shared filesystems should never use user/group
IDs _not_ coming from NIS+/LDAP. Mixing local and remote IDs in group
membership was forbidden as well. That worked quite well.

> Yet some packages do not deal very well with that solution:  some are
> confused by some user or group that they cannot modify with usermod or
> groupmod.  Others are confused when removing the user or group
> (userdel and groupdel failing to remove a NIS entry).

Well, administering a distributed environment is more complicated than
administering a single machine and you should be prepared for this kind
of problems.

As for Debian, it would be useful to submit bugs for such packages when
you encounter them. Package maintainers often do not use NIS/LDAP etc. so
they have no experience in this area. Being nice to distributed NSS is
seldom hard if you understand the common problems.

Gabor

-- 
 -
 MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

How to tell dpkg that a conffile of a disappeared package is now a configuration file (ucf)?

[Frank Küster]

Hi,

in the woody-to-sarge upgrade, tetex-base has taken over a file that was
previously a conffile of the texdoctk package.  In sarge, 

tetex-base: Replaces: texdoctk
tetex-bin: Replaces/Conflicts/Provides: texdoctk

so usually texdoctk is left in state "rc".  

However, since the file has changed between texdoctk's woody version and
tetex-base's sarge version, dpkg would have asked "conffile created by
you or a script".  To prevent this, we have put the file under ucf
control, and everything is fine...


... until somebody finds that texdoctk is in state rc and he doesn't
need it, and purges the package.  dpkg will remove the "conffile of
texdoctk", not knowing that it is now a (not-dpkg-managed) configuration
file of tetex-base.

Is there a way to prevent this, or is the bottom line just that ucf
should not be used for that purpose, i.e. in all cases where the package
that takes over conffiles does not depend on the replaced package?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
> > GPL:
> > 
> > """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."""
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> As Steve said: this does not apply, since you're planning to distribute
> the kernel together with the binaries. Read the final part of that
> clause ("unless that...") very carefully.
> 
> This clause was added to the GPL back when there was no totally free
> operating system yet, and people would need to install the GNU software
> on a non-free operating system. This would allow you to use GPL'ed
> software together with a non-free libc if you'd just install emacs on
> your Solaris, or so.
> 
> If, however, you're planning to totally redesign Solaris into something
> containing glibc and emacs from the very beginning, then this clause
> does not apply, since the "major components" do "accompany the
> executable".

In fact, we did initial port of GNU libc to Solaris kernel. But we
didn't see any points in continuing this, since SUN's libc and other
core libraries are well tested and we wanted to be compliant with others
OpenSolaris-based distributions.

But one is welcome to start work on Solaris GNU libc port. This is 1+
year effort by itself.

What we could do is:

(a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look
carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up
Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists.

(b) to resolve "the problem" is to ask OpenSolaris community to change
SUN libc to be dual-licensed. But possibility is very remote.

any others ideas?

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or through APT
> repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
> everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look
> carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up
> Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists.

Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#337254: ITP: slang-tess -- regression testing system for the S-Lang scripting language

[Rafael Laboissiere]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: slang-tess
  Version : 0.1.2
  Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/cxc/software/slang/modules/tess/
* License : MIT [*]
  Description : regression testing system for the S-Lang scripting language

 TESS is the (Te)st (S)ystem for (S)-Lang, which aims at reducing the
 workload and ad-hoc nature of regression testing S-Lang software, by
 collecting common testing elements into a single, easy-to-use framework.

 TESS provides the S-Lang developer nominal mechanisms for tailoring the
 S-Lang environment and invoking functions with arbitrary inputs, while
 transparently inspecting and cleaning the stack, gathering pass/fail
 statistics, and providing error recovery from selected exceptions.

A preliminary version of the package is available at the apt-getable
repository:

   http://people.debian.org/~rafael/tess

The package will be collectively maintained by the Debian JED Group
(http://pkg-jed.alioth.debian.org/).

[*] Details of the licensing terms:

  Copyright (C) 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  This software was partially developed by the MIT Center for Space
  Research under contract SV1-61010 from the Smithsonian Institution.

  Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
  its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
  provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
  both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in the
  supporting documentation, and that the name of the Massachusetts
  Institute of Technology not be used in advertising or publicity
  pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written
  prior permission.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes no
  representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose.
  It is provided äs is"without express or implied warranty.

  THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH
  REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MASSACHUSETTS
  INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
  CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF
  USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR
  OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
  PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)









-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:


Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.



This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt 
worked up enough to do anything about.


Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, 
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant 
licenses?  I understand we like the GPL but the DFSG is laxer in some 
respects.  And the spirit of Debian is the DFSG not the GPL.


I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should 
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at 
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#337255: ITP: slang-slirp -- C code generator for the S-Lang scripting language

[Rafael Laboissiere]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: slang-slirp
  Version : 1.7.6
  Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/cxc/software/slang/modules/slirp/
* License : MIT [*]
  Description : C code generator for the S-Lang scripting language

 SLIRP is a C code generator, aimed at simplifying the process of
 creating modules for the S-Lang scripting language. Using it can
 dramatically reduce the time and effort required to make C, C++, and
 FORTRAN code callable directly from the S-Lang interpreter.

 SLIRP can also generate Makefiles to automate the module build process,
 as well as pure C bindings for C++ code (cfront mode), or empty (stub)
 implementations for the interface(s) specified by its input. The code
 emitted in the latter two cases has no dependencies upon S-Lang
 whatsoever.

A preliminary version of the package is available at the apt-getable
repository:

   http://people.debian.org/~rafael/slirp

The package will be collectively maintained by the Debian JED Group
(http://pkg-jed.alioth.debian.org/).

[*] Details of the licensing terms:

  Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  Copyright (C) 2002 Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  This software was partially developed by the MIT Center for Space
  Research under contract SV1-61010 from the Smithsonian Institution.

  Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and
  its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
  provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
  both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in the
  supporting documentation, and that the name of the Massachusetts
  Institute of Technology not be used in advertising or publicity
  pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written
  prior permission.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes no
  representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose.
  It is provided äs is"without express or implied warranty.

  THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH
  REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MASSACHUSETTS
  INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
  CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF
  USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR
  OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
  PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)










-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#337256: ITP: slang-gtk -- binds the GIMP Toolkit (GTK) to the S-Lang scripting language

[Rafael Laboissiere]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: slang-gtk
  Version : 0.5.15-r2
  Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/home/mnoble/slgtk/
* License : MIT [*]
  Description : binds the GIMP Toolkit (GTK) to the S-Lang scripting 
language

 The SLgtk package binds the GIMP Toolkit, also known as Gtk, to the
 S-Lang scripting language. It was created with the SLIRP code
 generator, and provides an importable module which makes most of Gtk
 and its constituent libraries callable directly from S-Lang scripts.

 With SLgtk the S-Lang programmer now has access to a powerful,
 cross-platform widget set for creating sophisticated graphical user
 interfaces (GUIs).

A preliminary version of the package is available at the apt-getable
repository:

   http://people.debian.org/~rafael/slgtk

The package will be collectively maintained by the Debian JED Group
(http://pkg-jed.alioth.debian.org/).

[*] Details of the licensing terms:

  Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  Copyright (C) 2002 Michael S. Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  
  This software was developed by the MIT Center for Space Research
  under contract SV1-61010 from the Smithsonian Institution.

  Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software
  and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
  provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
  that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
  the supporting documentation, and that the name of the Massachusetts
  Institute of Technology not be used in advertising or publicity
  pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written
  prior permission.  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology makes
  no representations about the suitability of this software for any
  purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

  THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
  WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
  MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE MASSACHUSETTS
  INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
  CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS
  OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
  NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
  WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)









-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Dalibor Topic]

Erast Benson wrote:

any others ideas?


(c) Have whoever is in charge of the CDDL remove the parts from CDDL 
that make it GPL incompatible in the next revision of CDDL.


That should most of your problems at once.

cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Lars Wirzenius]

to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:
> I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should 
> either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at 
> the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.

One of Debian's main priorities is free software. Many of us are of the
opinion that free software is better served by the GPL than, say, the
BSD license. It would upset me, and I expect others, to have the project
require, or even strongly prefer, a non-GPL license, especially so if
the purpose is to allow software written for Debian to be used to create
systems that are not fully free. Further, we also believe this serves
users best.

I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors
get to choose their license as they wish.

-- 
On IRC, we sometimes like to watch silence.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Thiemo Seufer]

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
> 
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> >Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
> >issue.
> >
> 
> This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt 
> worked up enough to do anything about.
> 
> Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt, 
> have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant 
> licenses?

Because the authors chose so.

> I understand we like the GPL but the DFSG is laxer in some 
> respects.  And the spirit of Debian is the DFSG not the GPL.
> 
> I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should 
> either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at 
> the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.

Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project?


Thiemo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest 
> to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the 
> license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.

And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously.

Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright
holders of those.  Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that
are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am
one of them).  So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping
CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is
compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us.

We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious
wars either.  We are being responsible citizens.  If the CDDL is compatible
to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing*
against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel
and glibc over them.  I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to
do so legally.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright
> holders of those.  Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that
> are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am
> one of them).  So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping

Drat. I mean I am one of the authors of GPLed package scripts, not that I am
the author of any Debian-specific GPL software in the archive.  Not that it
matters much to the thread at hand.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project?

You mean to SPI?  No.  On purpose, I'd say.  Those of us who would assign
over copyright of our works would probably do so to the FSF, but that's
IMHO.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#337277: ITP: link-grammar -- Carnegie Mellon University's link grammar parser

[Ken Bloom]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: link-grammar
  Version : 4.1b
  Upstream Author : Daniel Sleator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Davy Temperley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Lafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/index.html
* License : BSD
  Description : Carnegie Mellon University's link grammar parser for English

In Selator, D. and Temperly, D. "Parsing English with a Link Grammar"
(1991), the authors defined a new formal grammatical system called a
"link grammar". A sequence of words is in the language of a link
grammar if there is a way to draw "links" between words in such a way
that the local requirements of each word are satisfied, the links do
not cross, and the words form a connected graph. The authors encoded
English grammar into such a system, and wrote this program to parse
English using this grammar.
.
This package can be used for linguistic parsing for information
retrieval or extraction from natural language documents. Abiword also
uses it as a grammar checker.

*** end description ***

I am not a DD, and I will need a sponsor to upload this package.
I am a graduate student in the Lingusitic Cognition Laboratory in the
Computer Science Department at Illinois Institute of Technology, and
as such this package is useful to me.  If anyone who sees this is
interested in sponsoring my uploads, please email me.

--Ken Bloom

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

[Martin Michlmayr]

In June I asked whether it would be possible to start a libglade to
libglade2 transition [1].  As it turns out, migrating applications to
libglade2 can be harder than expected and we can therefore assume that
libglade will stay with us for quite a while.

Unfortunately, libglade has been orphaned for over two years.  Given
that so many packages depend on it, it would be nice if libglade had
some maintainer, even if it's just for low-level maintenance.

Is anyone who maintains a package depending on libglade up to this, or
could the GNOME team adopt libglade?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01199.html
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Dependencies of -dev packages

[Russ Allbery]

Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:15:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I don't consider this to be a good solution.  #include  is part
>> of the API, and forcing all packages that want to build with Kerberos
>> to use special compiler flags to find include files in non-standard
>> locations seems to me to defeat the entire point of the FHS.

> This is nonsense. People using other OSes routinely build software at
> non-standard locations and they do not have any "API" issues at all.

Like I said, this defeats the entire point of the FHS.

> Furthermore, any Kerberos-using application should already use
> krb5-config to determine the neccessary compiler and linker flags,
> otherwise the application is already buggy as it will not build
> correctly on many non-Linux systems where Kerberos is not installed at a
> system location.

I maintain lots of Kerberos-using applications, none of which use
krb5-config, and all of which build fine on non-Linux systems where
Kerberos is not installed at the system location.  The *-config scripts
are not always a great idea; among other problems, they're something of an
all or nothing affair and it's difficult to work around bugs or inadequate
information in those scripts if you're using them.

I'm not saying that using krb5-config is a bad idea.  Over time, it's
gotten better and better.  But most Kerberos-using software does not use
that script for a variety of reasons and patching all Debian packages for
all of that software to use it is not necessary or particularly desirable
in my opinion.

> Also, I do not see any FHS issues here. Heimdal installing headers under
> /usr/include/heimdal-krb5 (and .so links under /usr/lib/heimdal-krb5)
> while MIT Kerberos installing headers under /usr/include/mit-krb5 (and
> .so links under /usr/lib/mit-krb5) is fully FHS-compliant.

It defeats the purpose of the FHS, which is to have files in a predictable
and consistent location that doesn't require configuring all software that
relies on those files with special flags.

>> (I didn't think separating the libraries was necessary; don't they use
>> non-conflicting names already?)

> Which separation do you think of? Both heimdal-dev and libkrb5-dev
> contain the /usr/lib/libkrb5.so symlink, so they do conflict unless that
> link is moved to some other place.

Sorry, my mistake.  I had thought that luckily all of the Heimdal library
names were different than all of the MIT library names, which I believe is
almost true *except* for (of course) libkrb5.

Anyway, given the vehemence of your response, I doubt you're willing to be
convinced.  Given that, I'll just say that, as the co-maintainer of the
MIT Kerberos package, I will not do what you suggest, and leave it at that
(at least in the absence of other arguments that strike me as more
persuasive).  If you want the package to change, you can try to convince
Sam, but I expect he'll have the same objections.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > (a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on "main" CD, and the rest of
> > GPL-filtered software, will go on "Companion" CD, or through APT
> > repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
> > everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will try look
> > carefully into GPL vs. LGPL vs. dual-licensed GPL and will clean up
> > Nexenta to be complient with requests on this mailing lists.
> 
> Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
> issue.

I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
to force developers do duplicate their work.

If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
suvirve.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 04.37, Erast Benson wrote:
> If don't, Nexenta will continue its way more like Ubuntu does.

You'll hire heaps of Debian developers and actually pay people to contribute 
their stuff back to Debian?  Now there's a thing!  Which Debian developers 
are in your pay (just curious)?  I'm always in favor of Debian developers 
being able to hack on Debian packages as their daytime job.

-- vbi

-- 
Jede Zeit ist eine Sphynx, die sich in den Abgrund stürzt, sobald man
ihr Rätsel gelöst hat.
-- Heinrich Heine


pgpxw1MBQiRcn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
> software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
> suvirve.

Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and 
GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.

-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer   | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:

> If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
> software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
> suvirve.

Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free 
software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow 
people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the 
most part) don't see that as desirable.

On a more practical note, the dpkg copyright file lists 24 people as 
copyright holders. Debian itself does not hold the copyright. You'd need 
to convince all of them to change the license.

(Unrelatedly: I'm still waiting for a username/password for the 
gnusolaris.org site. How long should I be expecting it to take?)
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nick Jacobs:
> 
> > You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> > significant amount of work should be done to restore
> > support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> > for 10 years?
> 
> I think AMD still makes them.

If so, they've hidden it on their web site.  The Elan is called
a Am5x86 CPU, and I get the impression that the Geode isn't i386
either.

Companies *do* make them, though.  They are *tiny*, low-power &
*cheap*.  The 386SX is perfect for the embedded market.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Things have never been more like the way they are today in
history.
Dwight David Eisenhower


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Embedded Debian

[DAWN NASH]

I am looking for an embedded solution for AMD SC520 @133MHz
processor, was wondering about the embedded Debian package.

 



Dawn Nash

Sr. Software Engineer

ISE Corporation

http://www.isecorp.com/

12302 Kerran Street

Poway, CA 92064 USA



 

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:


Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?


Because the authors chose so.



Obviously.  But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes 
against the spirit of the DFSG?


Anyhow, Branden pointed out on IRC that the premise is incorrect.  DFSG 4 
for instance doesn't consider all free software licenses equal.



--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> Matthew:

> > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
>
> Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.

So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use 
the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you 
can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things 
on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required 
web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a 
password.

Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and 
*then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be 
using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing 
portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.

I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that 
you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of 
Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)

-- vbi

-- 
Every bug you find is the last one.


pgptKazsi4CQu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote:


to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:

I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.


One of Debian's main priorities is free software. Many of us are of the
opinion that free software is better served by the GPL than, say, the
BSD license. It would upset me, and I expect others, to have the project
require, or even strongly prefer, a non-GPL license, especially so if
the purpose is to allow software written for Debian to be used to create
systems that are not fully free. Further, we also believe this serves
users best.



Yet we did make the kinds of compromises that open the door to not fully 
free software.  We even confirmed we wanted that with a GR.


Is this relevant?  I don't know.  It could be if someone were to 
strenuously argue for it.  Which I won't.



--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:35:22AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Nick Jacobs:
> > 
> > > You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
> > > significant amount of work should be done to restore
> > > support for a processor that has not been manufactured
> > > for 10 years?
> > 
> > I think AMD still makes them.
> 
> If so, they've hidden it on their web site.  The Elan is called
> a Am5x86 CPU, and I get the impression that the Geode isn't i386
> either.
> 
> Companies *do* make them, though.  They are *tiny*, low-power &
> *cheap*.  The 386SX is perfect for the embedded market.

Intel still sells 386 DX, SX and others:
http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/intel386/index.htm


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors
> get to choose their license as they wish.

Of course there is no other way we _can_ go. If somebody decides to
write cool, useful OS infrastructure software and license it under the
GPL for our use, it would be absurd and meaningless, not to say silly,
to decide not to use said software simply because it it is GPL'ed.

The license-related criterion for including things in Debian is that
the license fits the DFSG, and the (interpretation of the) DFSG has
been carefully crafted to admit the GPL.

This must hold whether or not the somebody who writes the
infrastructure software happens to be a Debian developer or an
outsider. We're all volunteers as far as the project is concerned,
and we cannot even theoretically by GR force a developer to release
their work under a license they don't want to. The only thing we
could, in principle do, was not to use their software, but if the GPL
is good enough for our principal kernel, our principal C compiler and
toolchain, our basic unix toolsuite, emacs, et cetera, we would be
fools to let good infrastructure code lie unused simply because of the
GPL.

-- 
Henning Makholm"He who joyfully eats soup has already earned
my contempt. He has been given teeth by mistake,
  since for him the intestines would fully suffice."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[David Moreno Garza]

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> it
> > stabilizes?  

> Yes.

Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?

Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

Cheers,

--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |  http://www.damog.net/
   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |  GPG: C671257D
  Chico Condesa: Pinche fresa mamón.

Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Maybe renaming Debians "i386" into something more accurate like "x86" or
> even "IA32" (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like
> this in the future?

Good idea :-)

-- 
ksig --random|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Dalibor Topic]

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:


Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?



Because the authors chose so.



Obviously.  But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes 
against the spirit of the DFSG?


They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a 
DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons:


a) CDDL's DFSG-compliance has been repeated subject of debate and it 
didn't receive a roundabout positive review yet, afaik.


b) the license choice of the authors of said utilities (GPL) most likely 
predates CDDL, so one can't assume that they deliberately chose to be 
incompatible with something that didn't exist at that point in time. 
CDDL only officially exists since a few seasons.


For better or worse, the CDDL is GPL-incompatible by an explicit choice 
of its drafters. That's not necessarily something undesirable for its 
drafters, from a few conversations I had with people involved in that 
process.


cheers,
dalibor topic


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Nathanael Nerode]

Erast Benson wrote:

>> > > > There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
>> > > > web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
   ^
Trademark point.  Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive?
If you are not, you must not call this a "Debian repository browser".  Call
it a ".deb repository" and a ".deb repository browser".  Debian is not a
generic term.  It refers strictly to the Debian Project or the system
distributions made by it (potato, woody, sid, etc.).  "Debian package"
refers strictly to unmodified packages from one of those distributions.

> read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at
> http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources
Pointing us to a password-protected website is inappropriate.

-- 
ksig --random|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:

They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a 
DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons:




I was not specifically referring to the CDDL.  There are other non-GPL 
compatible free software licenses.


I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not make 
any compromises.  If however it or any other otherwise DFSG-compliant 
license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather they who hold 
copyright) ought to consider it.  That's all I'm saying.


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

>>> Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
>>> have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
>>> licenses?

>> Because the authors chose so.

> Obviously.  But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
> against the spirit of the DFSG?

The GPL most emphatically does *not* go against the spirit of the
DFSG.  A very good first approximation to DFSG's concept of freedom is
that

  1. The GPL, version 2, is a free license.
  2. The BSD license is also a free license.
  3. Licenses that are "sufficiently similar" to the GPL or to the
 BSD license, or that lie somewhere in between them, are also free.

Nobody have yet convinced me that this is not by design.

Debian, and the free software community at large, is amicably divided
between those who under no circumstances want their work used in
proprietary software (and who thus favor the GPL) and those who just
want their work to be reused as widely as possible (and who thus favor
BSD-like licenses).

The big compromise that allows the division to remain amicable and
Debian to function as a conherent project - if you wish, the true
underlying "spirit of the DFSG" - is this: Neither of these two sides
get to say that the other side is wrong, not in the context of
Debian. We accept *both* styles of license equally and do not *as a
project* favor one over the other.  People who *as individuals*
contribute code get to decide which one they prefer.

Drop this premise, and our project will fall apart.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "... popping pussies into pies
  Wouldn't do in my shop
just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
   and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php, ...

[Nathanael Nerode]

Steve Langasek wrote:
>  We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
> are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
> case that is at issue with library transitions.
Ahhh.  I get it.  Just don't remove the old binaries unless they're manually 
melanied, right?  That much is trivial, and should just involve making 
britney stupider by making it do less.

The hard part there is working out how to hang on to the old source package 
(which is needed for licensing reasons), I guess?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Insert famous quote here]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[John Hasler]

Erast Benson writes:
> This should help FreeBSD ... non-glibc ports to suvirve.

In what way does the GPL licensing of dpkg harm such FreeBSD ports?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
> to force developers do duplicate their work.

It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without
restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Obviously.  But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes 
> against the spirit of the DFSG?

I disagree.  It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
> by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable
> work itself.

You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the
interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible
terms.  There is a special exception for some cases, but when that
special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere
aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the
compiled binaries section of the GPL.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Planning a libglade to libglade2 transition

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is anyone who maintains a package depending on libglade up to this, or
> could the GNOME team adopt libglade?
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01199.html

Since I'm the de facto gnome 1 weenie, being the last maintainer of a
big important gnome 1 package, which in fact uses libglade, I'll take
it.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest 
> > to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the 
> > license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.
> 
> And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously.
> 
> Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright
> holders of those.  Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that
> are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am
> one of them).  So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping
> CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is
> compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us.
> 
> We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious
> wars either.  We are being responsible citizens.  If the CDDL is compatible
> to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing*
> against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel
> and glibc over them.  I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to
> do so legally.

Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta "Companion"
CD, if user wants to.

To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian
community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will
ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like
Ubunutu. Think about it.

Erast



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
> sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
> GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta "Companion"
> CD, if user wants to.

No.  That is not sufficient.  This would simply be a subterfuge.  If
you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still
distributing the libraries along with the binaries.

> To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian
> community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will
> ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like
> Ubunutu. Think about it.

You seem to think this is a disaster scenario.

Debian is serious about license compliance.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is clear tension between this and the "mere aggregation" clause.
>> However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
>> modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
>> by the mere aggregation clause than the treatment of the executable
>> work itself.
>
> You can distribute compiled binaries only if you distribute all the
> interface definition files for building them under GPL-compatible
> terms.  There is a special exception for some cases, but when that
> special exception does not apply, it does not matter what the mere
> aggregation clause says, because that clause is simply not about the
> compiled binaries section of the GPL.

My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only
applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
executable.  That is, it means header files as well as implementation
files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the "build scripts" bit) for
what actually goes into the binary.  It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
definition files".

Even if they do, the viral part of it seems to be abuse of copyright
when applied to an underlying software library.  Constraining the
license of software that is:
  (a) in no way dependent on or derived from the GPLed work,
  (b) by design used by the GPLed work, and
  (c) would not be subject to the license if the GPLed work were on
  separate media
is not what I would call proper or appropriate use of reserved rights,
and I find it hard to believe a court would uphold the interpretation
you propose.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 
> > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> > to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
> > software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
> > suvirve.
> 
> Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free 
> software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow 
> people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the 
> most part) don't see that as desirable.

Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.

Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
(including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed back to the
community. This makes CDDL much better than BSD and almost as better as
GPL for what it was invented. So, CDDL will not stop progress of dpkg.
Quite opposite in fact, it should speed up dpkg development since there
will be more *payed* forces working on it and all changes to *existing*
CDDL files will be contributed back to the community.

That is why OpenSolaris CDDL'd kernel allowes HW vendors to hide their
IP in their own proprietery files but at the same time forces HW vendors
to contribute their changes to CDDL-licensed files back to the
OpenSolaris community. This fact is a killer for Linux kernel. IMHO.
Since Linux kernel suffers big time from not having wide HW vendors
support.

I have 10+ years of writing drivers experience for all kind of OSes, so
I know what I'm talking about. HW vendors will *never* open their IP in
drivers. Some HW vendors will never give NDAs for their user guides. So,
GPL kernels will always suffer as the result it forces Linux community
to reverse engineer binary drivers. Without user guides publicly
available, those drivers will allways miss many features which M$
Windows users (as an example) having and enjoying using every day.

The idea behind Nexenta OS is to bring GNU software to the level, when
end-user will not suffer from GPL kernel *limitations*.

> On a more practical note, the dpkg copyright file lists 24 people as 
> copyright holders. Debian itself does not hold the copyright. You'd need 
> to convince all of them to change the license.

I know that.

> (Unrelatedly: I'm still waiting for a username/password for the 
> gnusolaris.org site. How long should I be expecting it to take?)

We will send it to you shortly.

Hopefully, now you understand why our "Pilot" program was a *good
thing*. Without it, we could hit streets with unresolved legal issues.

Now, when Nexenta team fully understands the issues, we will resolve
them first and will make ISO images available for developers only by
personal request. And once ISO polished, we will open them for public.

Meanwhile I do not see any other issues why we should keep web site
closed, so, we will clean it up and open it up soon. But ISO images will
not be publicly available till all legal problems resolved one way or
another.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like
> > to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
> > software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
> > suvirve.
> 
> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and 
> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.

ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help
to resolve it.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> My reading of the "interface definition files" clause is that it only
> applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
> executable.  That is, it means header files as well as implementation
> files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the "build scripts" bit) for
> what actually goes into the binary.  

Right.

> It is not clear to me that
> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
> definition files".

Wrong.  Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
covers.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
> CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
> CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
> (including propriatery distributors) *must* be contributed back to the
> community. 

This is not what the GPL requires.  You use the word "exact" in a
curious way.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Kenneth Pronovici]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian
> community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will
> ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like
> Ubunutu. Think about it.

I'm getting really tired of this conversation going around in circles.

I think that to avoid duplication of work, it would be wise for Sun to
relicense OpenSolaris under the GPL.  What?  You don't think Sun would
do that?  Well, then why would you expect Debian to do something
similiar?   

This whole thing has nothing do with Debian being "serious" about
supporting non-glibc ports.  Debian's goal is to produce a free
operating system and make high-quality free software available for that
operating system.  Any discussion of whether we will generally support
non-glibc environments is at best tangential.  The only question at
issue right now is whether you -- specifically! -- can use Debian's code
in your particular non-glibc environment, Nexenta OS.  Please don't mix
issues like this!  It only adds to the confusion -- or worse, creates
the perception that you do not understand this distinction.

It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
thing without really understanding what Debian is about.  Consider what
you're asking for.  You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your
project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed
code.  

Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
should care about your problems.  You insist on making it sound like
somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
opportunity.  I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that
*you* were able to base *your* software on Debian.  And that only
happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through
the DFSG.

Think about it.

KEN

-- 
Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
>> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and 
>> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
>
> ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
> GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help
> to resolve it.

If the authors of the GPLd software in question are going to insist on
the GPL, which I think they are: consider, gcc, dpkg, and so forth,
which are GPLd and whose authors are not going to bend; and if Sun is
going to insist on the CDDL, then there may be no resolution.

The licenses are incompatible.  Unless one or both changes, there may
not be a solution.

It is Sun's desire to impose these restrictions on the copying of its
software.  It is the GPL's desire not to allow its binaries to be
distributed unless restrictions like Sun's are absent.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)

[Yavor Doganov]

At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
> 
> You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> been manufactured for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
> for the 99.9% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or better?

Why not supporting it, if it is not so hard?  This is important for
the small hobbits that love to tinker old hardware.  I have 2 i386
machines and I don't plan to throw them away.  I am quite confident
that the users of powerful and shiny new machines won't suffer much.

-- 
Yavor Doganov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> should care about your problems.  You insist on making it sound like
> somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
> opportunity.  I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that
> *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian.  And that only
> happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through
> the DFSG.

Very nicely said.  Thanks, Kenneth.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian
> community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will
> ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like
> Ubunutu. Think about it.

I did a great deal of work on a non-glibc port of Debian. That wasn't a
problem - the C library was under a GPL-compatible license. I've been
waiting for a conclusion to the multiarch issue before pushing it any
further.

However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code
under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's
just not something that Debian's especially interested in.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[Russ Allbery]

Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not
> make any compromises.  If however it or any other otherwise
> DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather
> they who hold copyright) ought to consider it.  That's all I'm saying.

Ought to consider it for what, though?

I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
(It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
investigated it closely.)  That's not what this thread is about.

What this thread is about is its incompatibility with the GPL in a fashion
that directly affects the legal viability of creating a GNU/Solaris
distribution that includes GPL-covered software.  We can't consider
ignoring that; we don't get to ignore bits of licenses that are
inconvenient.  Furthermore, that provision in the GPL was specifically
intended to prevent exactly what people are talking about doing,
admittedly for a system libc that was non-free rather than one that is
free but GPL-incompatible.

The simple solution to this problem is for Solaris to change the licensing
on its libc to make it GPL-compatible.  The chances of changing the
license on all of the GPL-covered software to make it CDDL-compatible are
remote at best.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It is not clear to me that
>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>> definition files".
>
> Wrong.  Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
> covers.

Then we will have to disagree on this point.  When the restriction
supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
have to think the "mere aggregation" clause dominates.  The other
interpretation violates DFSG#9.

[1]- Or on the same file server, in the same box, or whatever else
qualifies as "distributed together".

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free 
>> software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow 
>> people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the 
>> most part) don't see that as desirable.
> 
> Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.

Which would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg. I
don't see how that helps.
 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[John Hasler]

Erast writes:
> But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to
> release dpkg under LGPL license.

That's entirely up to the authors.  You are free to contact them.

> Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports.

Again you imply that the BSD license is not compatible with the GPL.  It
is.

> If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will ever be part of Debian community and will
> continue its way more like Ubunutu. Think about it.

I'd say that sounds like a threat, but what would it be a threat of?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Matthew:
> 
> > > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
> >
> > Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> > But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.
> 
> So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use 
> the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you 
> can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things 
> on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required 
> web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a 
> password.
> 
> Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and 
> *then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be 
> using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing 
> portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.
> 
> I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that 
> you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of 
> Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)
> 
> -- vbi

acked.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > it
> > > stabilizes?  
> 
> > Yes.
> 
> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> DFSGs?
> 
> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken.
Thanks.

Erast

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> 
> >> > > > There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
> >> > > > web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
>^
> Trademark point.  Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive?
> If you are not, you must not call this a "Debian repository browser".  Call
> it a ".deb repository" and a ".deb repository browser".  Debian is not a
> generic term.  It refers strictly to the Debian Project or the system
> distributions made by it (potato, woody, sid, etc.).  "Debian package"
> refers strictly to unmodified packages from one of those distributions.
> 
> > read some more GPL vs. CDDL legality stuff on our web site at
> > http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/GNU/Solaris_Resources
> Pointing us to a password-protected website is inappropriate.
> 
> -- 
> ksig --random|
> 
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> It is not clear to me that
>>> standard library header files qualify as "associated interface
>>> definition files".
>>
>> Wrong.  Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
>> covers.
>
> Then we will have to disagree on this point.  When the restriction
> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
> have to think the "mere aggregation" clause dominates.  The other
> interpretation violates DFSG#9.

No, that's not right.  You are thinking of this as a derived work
case, and it's not.  There is no claim here about derived works.

I can say "you may distribute my binary if you pay me $100".  I can
say "you may distribute my binary but only if you pay John $100".  I
can say "you may distribute my binary, but only if you never eat
artichokes again."  I can say, "you may distribute my binary only if
you distribute yours too."  

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other than start enforcing
it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> > variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> > duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
> > to force developers do duplicate their work.
> 
> It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without
> restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has.

Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with
CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes
back.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
>> > variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
>> > duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
>> > to force developers do duplicate their work.
>> 
>> It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without
>> restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has.
>
> Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with
> CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes
> back.

The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
That's exactly the *point*.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
> > make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
> > sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
> > GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta "Companion"
> > CD, if user wants to.
> 
> No.  That is not sufficient.  This would simply be a subterfuge.  If
> you distribute the CDs together as a set, then you are still
> distributing the libraries along with the binaries.

Wrong. It all depends...

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure

[David Nusinow]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
> against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
> (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
> investigated it closely.)  That's not what this thread is about.

There was a thread about the CDDL a few months ago on debian-legal [1]. Many
people argued that it was not DFSG-free due to the choice of venue clause.

I argued very fiercly that this clause did not prevent it from being a
DFSG-free license. In the end though, I was convinced that this clause is
in fact non-free because it imposes a serious potential burden on simply
copying the software around, which is a freedom that I believe should be
unrestricted. 

I realize that this is a contentious matter so I'm not willing to push this
belief on other people, but I recommend you take a look at the thread and
decide for yourself. If the Debian/OpenSolaris people are serious about
becoming a subproject then the question is something that the project as a
whole is going to have to deal with.

 - David Nusinow

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00025.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Michael Poole]

Erast Benson writes:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
>> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
>> > it
>> > > stabilizes?  
>> 
>> > Yes.
>> 
>> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
>> DFSGs?
>> 
>> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
>> 
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
>
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
thing.  It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
have changed.  For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that?  Does Sun
represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims?  What
about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> It really seems like you jumped into this "base our system on Debian"
> thing without really understanding what Debian is about.  Consider what
> you're asking for.  You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
> of some of its core infrastructure in order to solve problems your
> project has created *for itself* by choosing to work with CDDL-licensed
> code.  

If you do not like CDDL license, it is your personal opinion. Nothing
more. I do not like Linux GPL nature, this is my personal opinion too.

Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on
non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on
> non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved.

Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
> >> problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and 
> >> GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
> >
> > ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
> > GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help
> > to resolve it.
> 
> If the authors of the GPLd software in question are going to insist on
> the GPL, which I think they are: consider, gcc, dpkg, and so forth,
> which are GPLd and whose authors are not going to bend; and if Sun is
> going to insist on the CDDL, then there may be no resolution.
> 
> The licenses are incompatible. 

today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard
non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution.

>  Unless one or both changes, there may not be a solution.

right.

> It is Sun's desire to impose these restrictions on the copying of its
> software.  It is the GPL's desire not to allow its binaries to be
> distributed unless restrictions like Sun's are absent.

Sun is willing to open *all* their code base. It can not do it in one
day, this will take some time. Mostly because some libraries in
OpenSolaris are not Sun copyrighted. libm is one cood example.

Take a look on opensolaris's roadmap and how exactly they are planning
to make opensolaris absolutely open sourced at some point:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/;jsessionid=700CF23476B8AA3331D46769AEC2EE33

Once it is doing, there will be nothing stopping Sun to make SUN libc
dual-license.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
> > should care about your problems.  You insist on making it sound like
> > somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
> > opportunity.  I've got news for you: the great opportunity here was that
> > *you* were able to base *your* software on Debian.  And that only
> > happened because Debian protected your rights to that software through
> > the DFSG.
> 
> Very nicely said.  Thanks, Kenneth.

And I respect Debian developers work. And wait when Debian developers
will respect ours work too.

Thanks.
Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > To make it happen, we need to resolve "dpkg" issue and initial boot
> > strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
> > software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
> > community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of course, if Debian
> > community serious about non-glibc ports. If not, I doubt Nexenta OS will
> > ever be part of Debian community and will continue its way more like
> > Ubunutu. Think about it.
> 
> I did a great deal of work on a non-glibc port of Debian. That wasn't a
> problem - the C library was under a GPL-compatible license. I've been
> waiting for a conclusion to the multiarch issue before pushing it any
> further.
> 
> However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
> over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
> personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code
> under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's
> just not something that Debian's especially interested in.

ok not LGPL. LGPL is too restrictive comparing to CDDL. With LGPL one
will not be forced to contribute its changes back. But with CDDL - you
must contribute your changes back. It works similar to GPL but on
per-file basis.

If we could convince them that CDDL license is good enough to not give
their work to proprietary projects and that proprietary paying workers
will be forced to contribute back(under CDDL-terms), than they might
accept dpkg to be dual CDDL-GPL. Maybe.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then we will have to disagree on this point.  When the restriction
>> supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
>> on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
>> have to think the "mere aggregation" clause dominates.  The other
>> interpretation violates DFSG#9.
>
> No, that's not right.  You are thinking of this as a derived work
> case, and it's not.  There is no claim here about derived works.

I did not mean to bring derived works into the question; I agree that
there is no present claim about them.  Why do you think my line of
argument is limited to questions of derived works?

The two license clauses in question are these:

  In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
  Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a
  volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
  work under the scope of this License.

and:

  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 first says that it does not apply to works derived from the GPLed
work -- but the C library (and its interfaces) are not derived works
of an application that uses them.  The C library header files are also
in no way part of the preferred form for making modifications to the
GPLed work.

Michael Poole


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free 
> >> software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow 
> >> people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we (for the 
> >> most part) don't see that as desirable.
> > 
> > Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed.
> 
> Which would allow people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg. I
> don't see how that helps.

It helps preserve dpkg progress and forces proprietary paying workers to
contribute back to the project.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
> 
> You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
> the GPL, we are "forced" to do something other than start enforcing
> it.

Apparently you misunderstood me.
All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.

CDDL will not allow to create proprietary dpkg without forcing
proprietary workers to open up their changes back to the community. So,
it is practically what GPL does.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 
> >> > I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
> >> > variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
> >> > duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
> >> > to force developers do duplicate their work.
> >> 
> >> It's the intention of the GPL to force release of software without
> >> restrictions like the ones that the CDDL has.
> >
> > Once again, CDDL doing *exactly* the same thing as GPL does with
> > CDDL-licensed files. i.e. forces developers to contribute their changes
> > back.
> 
> The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
> That's exactly the *point*.

Explain please.

Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
contributed back to the community. Also GPL-ed dpkg could be easily
distributed as a binary if it is not part of the system. The way KDE and
other GPL-ed software distributed in projects like www.blastwave.org,
cygwin, etc.

CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Erast Benson writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> >> > it
> >> > > stabilizes?  
> >> 
> >> > Yes.
> >> 
> >> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> >> DFSGs?
> >> 
> >> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> >> 
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
> >
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
> 
> The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
> thing.  It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
> those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
> much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
> have changed.  For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
> thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
> patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that?  Does Sun
> represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims?  What
> about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?

I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough
for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports
possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should
be enough to make only dpkg software dual-licensed as CDDL/GPL.

Erast


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
> > over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
> > personally, I'd be surprised if they're willing to relicense their code
> > under a license that allows it to be used in proprietary projects. It's
> > just not something that Debian's especially interested in.
> 
> ok not LGPL. LGPL is too restrictive comparing to CDDL. With LGPL one
> will not be forced to contribute its changes back. But with CDDL - you
> must contribute your changes back. It works similar to GPL but on
> per-file basis.

I think you need to reread the LGPL. If dpkg was relicensed under the 
LGPL, any modification to the dpkg code would still require 
modifications to be released in source form. However, it could still be 
used as a component in proprietary products, and people *don't want 
that*.

> If we could convince them that CDDL license is good enough to not give
> their work to proprietary projects and that proprietary paying workers
> will be forced to contribute back(under CDDL-terms), than they might
> accept dpkg to be dual CDDL-GPL. Maybe.

In this respect, the LGPL and the CDDL are pretty much the same. Both 
permit code to be used in proprietary products while requiring that any 
changes to the licensed code be available.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Apparently you misunderstood me.
> All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
> GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
> components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.

Not every dpkg copyright holder is still a member of the Debian
community, so it's not something that the Debian community can decide to
do.

> CDDL will not allow to create proprietary dpkg without forcing
> proprietary workers to open up their changes back to the community. So,
> it is practically what GPL does.

CDDL allows people to build proprietary products that incorporate dpkg
code. That's entirely the point of making it file based. If dpkg is
released under the CDDL, I can build (say) a graphical installer that
incorporates dpkg code. I am only obliged to release the source code
of files that originally came from dpkg - the majority of my code can
remain closed, and not contributed to the community in any way.

Under the GPL, I would be obliged to provide source code for the entire
application. That's the important difference between the two, and that's
why dpkg is under the GPL and not the LGPL. It's a basic philosophical
issue, and has nothing to do with whether a port is based on glibc or
not.

In fewer words: dpkg is under the license it's under because the GPL has
the desired effects. The CDDL and the LGPL wouldn't, and so it's not
likely to be dual-licensed.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]