Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:39:21PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] [snip] 4. there's already working java in main; and Partly/somewhat/mostly working. That's correct: Unfortunately, we've not completely finished liberating all free software written in Java from the proprietary runtime dependency [1] yet. The work is progressing steadily, as can be seen from the API coverage list at http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14-classpath.html for 1.4 and http://www.object-refinery.com/classpath/statcvs/ LOC charts. We need more Java developers to help us create the best Java runtimes and class library implementation as free software. The Debian Java packagers and the respective upstreams would likely appreciate contributions to improve the state of support for free software written in the Java programming language on free runtimes, such that it can be moved into the main archive. See http://www.classpath.org for helping out with the class library, and see, for example, FSF's gcj at http://gcc.gnu.org/java for the leading (35%, says popcon) free runtime. Debian also packages JamVM and Cacao, among other traditional free runtimes, as well as IKVM. Please report bugs in the class library to GNU Classpath's bug tracker, so that they can be fixed. If you have a chance, please consider contributing a patch to help make the Java application you care about work (better). See http://jroller.com/page/dgilbert?entry=sven_de_genius , http://kennke.org/blog/?p=5 and http://kennke.org/blog/?p=7 for a few applications that are currently being liberated from dependencies on proprietary Java implementations. cheers, dalibor topic [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhgQZS9HxQb37XmcRAvFaAKDC2niBaDpsJbiwvX0QA9utJhcQSACfe28j cMK8+C6xO+LJMurbMbuiUDE= =xO9I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards improving the current license There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here already, I guess people are currently just waiting for the fixes from Sun's legal. Some kind of more structured process would be nice, the DPL could play a useful role there. and developing sufficient confidence in the Debian and free software community to release Java under an entirely free license. In my opinion, that's conflating two separate issues. Afaict, noone working on the DLJ (from Sun's or Debian's side) knew anything about Sun's recently voiced intention to 'release Java under an entirely free license'. That intention has been publicized after Sun announced the Debian/Canonical deal, rather then as part of it. I don't recall either Schwartz or Green giving an impression at JavaOne that Sun's decision was or would be influenced by Debian carrying DLJ-licensed software. Suggesting that two issues are interrelated seems unwarranted to me, given the currently publicly available knowledge. Sun already *is* part of the free software community, and has been for years. Debian ships lots of free software with Sun's copyright on it. I would be very surprised if a multi-billion dollar corporation with 35k+ employees, largely working on free software, needed particular handholding from someone else to figure out what free software is, given how many bright people work over there on free software already. ;) 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
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
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
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
Erast Benson wrote: The GPL does not force developers to contribute their changes back. That's exactly the *point*. Explain please. Read this book: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/ , then read this book: http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm , then read the GPL FAQs, and the philosophical material on FSF's site. Then you should have a much better understanding of software licensing, MPL-derived licenses, the LGPL and the GPL, and your questions should largely find answers on your own. You seem to be very confused about how the GPL or (for the matter) the CDDL works. This is a debian development mailing list, and not an open source software licensing teach-in. 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
Erast Benson wrote: Or may be make it CDDL dual licensed. Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of your problems are gone. I hope I don't sound too harsh on you, but I'd find it naive to expect the rest of the world to drop the GPL (or to go through the cumbersome work of relicensing everything) just because Sun released some software under yet another GPL-incompatible license and you are trying to release a product with it. Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. In my opinion, the major benefit of the CDDL for Sun Microsystems is largely that they can have a license that they alone can authoratively interpret in case of doubt, and steer in direction they desire, rather than having to deal with other people with potentially conflicting goals (those weird people wanting software freedom for all, for example). ;) 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. With a name like gnusolaris.org, Solaris being a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, it seems like you are asking for legal problems, either way. I'm a bit curious, what's your business plan like? 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
Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: Or you could just persuade the copyright holders to make all of OpenSolaris code that you use dual licensed with the GPL, and many of your problems are gone. Effectively, might happen that once SUN released all their closed binaries as open sourced, they might be willing to make SUN libc (only) dual-licensed. OK. Come back when that's done and finished. Good luck improving the CDDL. Which should be enough to accept GNU/Solaris as yet another Debian port without changing anything. But to do so, Nexenta should continue its existence and prove that it is needed for Debian community. Good luck fixing the website, too. This is my last e-mail, as a contribution to this thread. Thank you for your contribution to Debian. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: old question with new status? Sun-Java in Debian non-free?
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:34:52AM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote: According to various press releases [1], it seems that Sun is relaxing their redistribution license for Java. I know very little about the historical releases that the JRE has been kept out of Debian but wasn't it because the license was too restrictive? Given that the article does not mention relaxing their redistribution license for Java, while I can understand your enthusiasm, unfortunately I think you misinterpreted the article. Remember, JDS != JDK and JDS != JRE. JDS is a gnome-based desktop that sun sells for solaris and their own linux distro. It includes a bunch of proprietary apps, afaik. The article says Sun will make that gnome-based desktop available for other linux distributions than their own. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libsvn-javahl: call for help
Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Hi all, Now, we have two possible situations for the next days: either someone will volunteer and get that fixed soon, so it Just Works (tm) once again and we can leave it there for people who really care for it, or it will be dropped, as, more than under-maintained, it's broken and breaking the rest of subversion. Volunteered, been on IRC on #debian-svn, submitted a Kaffe bug about it, and a proposal how to fix. Thanks for reporting it! cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther wrote: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. [snip] The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. [snip] That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? I guess it was a mistake. star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the license to CDDL. The respective change was at http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. [snip] The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. [snip] That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. So, is this non-free or not ? It's incomprehensible legalese gibberish to a mere non-lawyer mortal like me, so I can't really say. That's a general problem of MPL-derivative licenses: they were written by lawyers for lawyers, ignoring that most developers do not have an extensive background in intimate details of international contract law, or whatever the MPL (and by inheriting the clause, CDDL) tries to avoid getting bound by. If you are into reading funny flamewars about CDDL from other groups, see the star vs. OpenBSD thread on open bsd lists this spring. ... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL. I agree. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that it is applicable. Yes, but what does it *say*? There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were afraid of. Thanks Henning, and thanks Yorrick for putting all the work into investigating what started as a joke on puzzling legalese. Now I know more than I ever wanted to know about UN sale of goods conventions. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Momchil Velikov wrote: Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then Sven differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be Sven named and so one ? Indeed ! GNU/First one that shall not be named GNU/Next one that shall not be named GNU/Other one that shall not be named Loosely abbreviated: GNU/Fotsnoben GNU/Notsnoben GNU/Ootsnoben yeah, sounds very mystic. Probably means elk spit in some nordic language, too. I vote for that. cheers, dalibor topic
