Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[David Schmitt]

On Friday 11 November 2005 21:19, George Danchev wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> > > > Microsystems?
> >
> > To which my answer was "yes". I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse
> > you in any way.
>
> Could you please elaborate why your answer was "yes" ? Having done that
> with Companion CD [1] (which is full of mostly GPL software linked against
> Sun's libc) for Solaris 8/9/10 Sun Microsystems, Inc is perfectly ok

> P.S. I'd like to apologize being too impatient and replying to previous
> messages on that thread which have been already replied but missed by
> myself.

Take a look at Anthonys mail and my reply, which explore this issue:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00753.html


Regards, David
-- 
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
 -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[George Danchev]

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> > > Microsystems?
>
> To which my answer was "yes". I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse
> you in any way.

Could you please elaborate why your answer was "yes" ? Having done that with 
Companion CD [1] (which is full of mostly GPL software linked against Sun's 
libc) for Solaris 8/9/10 Sun Microsystems, Inc is perfectly ok (except they 
calling it wrongly freeware [2]) because of GPL permits that [3][4]. That is 
not the problem (that's GPL being smart here), the problem is that I doubt 
CDDL 1.0 can satisfy Debian free software principles and rules, thus I doubt 
gnusolaris can be part of the Debian project, except if the copyright holders 
re-think the license of  its the codebase and relicensed it as well.

[1] http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware/
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
[4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
[5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible

P.S. I'd like to apologize being too impatient and replying to previous 
messages on that thread which have been already replied but missed by myself. 

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[alexander kemalov]

Hi,
I tried to download and run Live CD but without 
success. I think that collaboration of enterprise forces of 
Solaris-security,stable,expandable and usability of Debian platform is 
great idea. I'm a sys admin in Institute of Computer and Comm. Systems - Bulg. 
Academy of Science. Our efforts /may group/ are in computer communications 
with Win and Unix/Linux platforms from one side. Another mainstream is 
collaboration of Unix/Linux/OpenBSD platforms and Cisco equipment and softs - 
build gateways, firewalls and so on.I want to support Nexenta OS and if you 
agree with my possibilities, I'm ready to connect with development and 
test.
Regards
alexander kemalov
 

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 22:26, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

Let's put personal stuff apart, but if you do not like GPL, why do not you 
pick a proven license as BSD.

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

Wrong. Debian has DFSG which has been respected for many years now... and does 
not accept or scale with any "seem to (not?)be almost like free softwarez or 
warez". CDDL 1.0 does not scale at all with the proven free software licences 
and needs to be re-thinked in its next version. See the related discussions 
in debian-legal@ for the previous 2-3 months.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 18:45, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

Yes if there are license issues.

> 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.

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD does NOT have any (free) license issues. CDDL 1.0 code 
has.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[George Danchev]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 21:25, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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

It is safer/wiser/saner to re-license you code under GPL or GPL-compat 
license. No sane person will use CDDL 1.0 licensed code, at least because of 
the funny patches like the choice-of-venue clauses. Patch your license or 
find already proven to be free one.

> 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 highly doubt such funny ultimatum does matter ;-) Please read www.debian.org 
to get a notion how the Debian community works.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


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

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

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 12:45 -0800, Erast Benson escreveu:
> 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.

I say let's reject it.

Let Sun do the rethinking.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha 
Debian:    *  



signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

(Oh, and please don't see this as any sort of bias against non-Linux 
kernels or non-glibc systems - I spent quite some time working on a port 
of Debian to the NetBSD kernel, using the native C library)

-- 
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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote:

> Here's the 2nd part of the answer:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> > Microsystems?

To which my answer was "yes". I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse 
you in any way.
-- 
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

[Alex Ross]

Matthew Garrett wrote:

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


At the time of writing, I assumed "GNU/Solaris" implied they'd use the
GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it).


Having downloaded their preview ISO:

The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of
GPLed material. When I queried this, I was told

"Our reading of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) tells us
that we are fully compliant. Sun libc is exempt simply because it is
(quote from GPL, Section 3) 'normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel...'."

I've pointed out that the rest of that sentence rules out that line of
argument, but haven't received a response yet.


Here's the 2nd part of the answer:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> 
>
> Then again, there's the Solaris distribution from Sun Microsystems.
> Sun's JDS
> has gnome-about. Here's the linkage from Solaris Express (that comes by
> the way
> on a single DVD):
>
> # cat /etc/release
>Solaris 11 nv_16 X86
>Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> Use is subject to license terms.
>  Assembled 01 June 2005
>
> # which gnome-about
> /usr/bin/gnome-about
> # ldd `which gnome-about` | grep libc
> libc.so.1 => /lib/libc.so.1
> libcrypto.so.0.9.7 =>/usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.7
> libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.7 =>
> /usr/sfw/lib/libcrypto_extra.so.0.9.7
>
> # /usr/ccs/bin/mcs -p `which gnome-about`
> /usr/bin/gnome-about:
>
> 2.6.0:JDS3:SUNWgnome-panel:i386:2005-05-16:supported
>
>
> The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun
> Microsystems?
>
> Best regards!
>
> Nexenta Systems, Inc.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At the time of writing, I assumed "GNU/Solaris" implied they'd use the
> GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it).

Having downloaded their preview ISO:

The system is using Solaris's C library, but contains a great deal of
GPLed material. When I queried this, I was told

"Our reading of the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) tells us
that we are fully compliant. Sun libc is exempt simply because it is
(quote from GPL, Section 3) 'normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel...'."

I've pointed out that the rest of that sentence rules out that line of
argument, but haven't received a response yet.
-- 
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

[cascardo]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:40:34AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
> 
> > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>  CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
> >>>
> >>> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
> >>
> >> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
> >> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
> >> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
> >
> > I do not comprehend what he means with "CDDL works on a per-file basis,
> > GPL does not".  One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed
> > source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible
> > licenses.
> 
> The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed
> files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and
> distribute the resulting executable.  The GPL applies to the work as a
> whole.  The relevant sections of the GPL are below; this trait is why
> people say that, even though CDDL is a copyleft license, it allows
> developers to create proprietary applications on top of the CDDL base.

Sorry, but the relevant sections below do not belong to the GPL, but
to the CDDL.

> 
>   1.3. "Covered Software" means (a) the Original Software, or (b)
> Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original
> Software with files containing Modifications, in each case
> including portions thereof.
> 
>   1.9. "Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any
> of the following:
> A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or
> modification of the contents of a file containing Original
> Software or previous Modifications;
> B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or
> previous Modification; or
> C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available
> under the terms of this License.
> 
>   1.12. "Source Code" means (a) the common form of computer software
> code in which modifications are made and (b) associated
> documentation included in or with such code.
> 
>   3.1. Availability of Source Code.
> Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
> available in Executable form must also be made available in Source
> Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under
> the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License
> with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software
> You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform
> recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to
> how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a
> reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for
> software exchange.
> 
> Does this help?
> 
> Michael Poole
> 

Thadeu Cascardo
--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Banck]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:47:22AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?
> 
> And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and
> would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg?

Yes.

At the time of writing, I assumed "GNU/Solaris" implied they'd use the
GNU libc (so I didn't even ask them about it).


cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Ken Bloom]

Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>>>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. ...
> 
> 
> Only if you distribute a binary based on the changed foo.c.  And only if
> someone asks you for the sources.
> 
> If you keep the binary to yourself, you don't have to release anything.

And you don't have to tell the original developers about your
improvements either, even if you are distributing the code. You can let
them search the *whole* internet to find the improvements if you want.

--Ken Bloom


-- 
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> > I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing.
> 
> Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux

Perhaps he meant that *reading them as criticisms of Linux* was
disappointing.

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:17:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here.
> > It's not very productive.)

You can start CC'ing the conversation to -legal.  Moving threads, in
my experience, generally doesn't work; besides, -devel can handle the
noise.

> Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is
> highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor
> identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free.

It may be more productive to simply point him at one of the other
seven or ten times someone has claimed this, and received the same
response, and not waste time rehashing this again unless there's
something new to add.  :)

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00826.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00242.html

were easy to find, at least.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is
> highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor
> identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free.

This is, of course, a definition of "free" that's specific to some
sections of Debian. It doesn't match the FSF's definition of "free"
terribly well.

-- 
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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm:
>> Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
>>> anonymous changes.

>> Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
>> Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source.

> The copy shipped by Debian contains the following requirement:

> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

You can satisfy this by adding a comment at the top:

  /* SEE HERE >   I changed this file on November 5th, 2005 */

There is no requirement at all that you divulge who "I" is.
The meaning of the clause is simply that the recipient must be alerted
that the file _has_ been changed.

> (We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here.
> It's not very productive.)

Feel free to move it; I subscribe to -legal too. The discussion is
highly relevant, because licenses that do require that a contributor
identifies himself posivtively are _not_ free.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
   all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Florian Weimer]

* Henning Makholm:

> Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
>> anonymous changes.
>
> Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
> Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source.

What is a trusted source?  The copy shipped by Debian contains the
following requirement:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

(We should move this discussion to -legal, or stop it right here.
It's not very productive.)


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

GPL... (was: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program)

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Friday 04 November 2005 14.33, John Hasler wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > community.
>
> That's not true either.  Any distributed changes must be made available
> to those to whom the changes were distributed.  In practice changes
> usually become available to the community but that is not required.

... and it is also not required to make the changes available in a useable 
form.  (/me remembers some Montavista hacked gcc for some embedded 
platform: I tried to forward port their modification once, but gave up 
because all they distributed was the complete toolchain source with no 
indication what upstream version, exactly, it was based on[1].  Legally ok, 
to the letter of the GPL, but totally useless beecause isolating 
Montavista's work was virtually impossible.  I'm not picking on MV 
specifically here, it's just a good example from personal experience.)

[1] nontrivial - I concluded that it must have been a CVS snapshot with some 
additional upstream patches applied.

-- vbi

-- 
Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)


pgpJ90YmDUABc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Friday 04 November 2005 19.00, Andrew Suffield wrote:

> Complete bullshit. Get a life. 

Ahhh, yet another instance of asuffield.

-- vbi

-- 
featured product: GNU Privacy Guard - http://gnupg.org


pgpToLVOlXVEk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Thursday 03 November 2005 20.51, Erast Benson wrote:
> HW vendors will *never* open their IP in
> drivers.

Ok, this becomes a bit OT here, but let me just remark that Linux today 
supports a *lot* of hardware, and that quite a few drivers (some RAID 
controllers, Intel SATA stuff, most of the S/390 and a lot of the HPPA 
stuff, I'm sure there's more) are actually actively supported by hardware 
vendors.  So you seem to live in a parallel universe at least to some 
degree.

-- vbi

-- 
Beware of the FUD - know your enemies. This week
* Patent Law, and how it is currently abused. *
http://fortytwo.ch/opinion


pgpfYbZmD9hLv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Or, *freedoms*.  If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, 
>> they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their 
>> wares.
>
> Please wake up. :-)
>
> This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
>
> The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> and at which point?

You seem to miss the point that software freedom is what Debian is all
about.  Please read http://www.debian.org/social_contract; you might
then start to understand where we are coming from.  Anything not
falling within the scope of the DFSG is not of any interest.

Your many (somewhat confused) posts seem to be asking us to be doing a
lot of relicensing *for you*, but quite what we gain is not clear.
Working on proprietary software is not what we do.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFDbAmlVcFcaSW/uEgRAr2zAJ9xEthUrpw6cpc7AxeHIsjDHIoQaQCgu+KV
AqB9JJMCt3UmQksHJLhOnh4=
=s/fj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
> anonymous changes.

Your copy of the GPL must have been garbled in transmission.
Please fetch a fresh copy from a trusted source.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje,
   slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!"

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Florian Weimer]

* Frank Küster:

>> Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.
>
> I cannot find it there.  Moreover, if it was in there, the GPL would
> fail the Dissident test and the Dessert Island test.

The GPL does fail the Dissident test because it does not permit
anonymous changes.

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:54:01PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Wouter Verhelst:
> > > 
> > > >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> > > >> contributed back to the community.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's not true.
> > > >
> > > > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > > > community.
> > > 
> > > Huh?  Why do you think so?
> > 
> > Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.
> 
> I cannot remember to have read that. Perhaps you can cite the
> appropriate section. The only thing the GPL requires is that I do not
> further control the distribution of any file I gave someone else (except
> as far as controlled by the terms of the GPL). It does not require me or
> the other person to share the information with anyone else.

The point which Florian was correcting, was that you only have to give
source to people you give binaries to; changes which are not distributed
don't have to be given to anyone.

(If you're referring to "back to the community", then you should have
replied to Wouter's message, not Florian's.  The correction being made
in the message you replied to was "*distributed* changes", so that's what
you seem to be questioning.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix
>> CDDL-licensed files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible
>> licenses and distribute the resulting executable.

> Sorry, I didn't imagine that a license with such a clause exists,
> and less that anybody would call it free.

Come on, come on. The BSD license also permits mixing with non-free
files and distributing the resulting executable. And that one's widely
called "free".

-- 
Lionel


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
> >> > That's exactly the *point*.
> >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> >> contributed back to the community.
> >
> > No, that's not true.
> >
> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > community. There's a major difference here.
> 
> Not even that!  Any distributed changes must be given to the person
  ^
> you distribute foo to.

Not even that. They must at the very least be *offered*.

[excerpted from GNU GPL v2]
3.b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
  to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
  physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
  copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the
  terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
  software interchange

-- 
John H. Robinson, IV  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http  
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[
as apparently my cats have learned how to type.  spiders.html  


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adam Heath]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Christian Perrier wrote:

> > 
> > As for relicensing it, fuck off.  I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment 
> > for
> > the Sodomotron 2000.
> > 
>
> ...which could certainly have been written:
>
> 
> As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.
> 
>
> I actually don't really see a reason for being so aggressive verbally
> with someone we (you) disagree with. Erast Benson has been polite all
> along this thread and I'm afraid that the above sentence can only help
> many people reading the thread to keep convinced that Debian people
> still need to grow up a little.

This might be true; however, one needs to look past all the sweet talk and
honey, at the meat of the matter.  For this situation, there were very obvious
and apparent attempts at at misconception of the debian populace, in an
attempt to win favor.

If I had my druthers, I'd almost say this was a hoax.

It is in these situations, that one needs to see what is actually happening,
and get the evildoer to leave as quickly as possible; feeding with honey words
does not tend to have that effect.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:49:35PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the
> meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it
> apply at all.

Complete bullshit. Get a life. 

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
>> > That's exactly the *point*.
>> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
>> contributed back to the community.
>
> No, that's not true.
>
> Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> community. There's a major difference here.

Not even that!  Any distributed changes must be given to the person
you distribute foo to.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Andreas Barth]

* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051104 14:40]:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst:
> > 
> > >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> > >> contributed back to the community.
> > >
> > > No, that's not true.
> > >
> > > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > > community.
> > 
> > Huh?  Why do you think so?
> 
> Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.

I cannot remember to have read that. Perhaps you can cite the
appropriate section. The only thing the GPL requires is that I do not
further control the distribution of any file I gave someone else (except
as far as controlled by the terms of the GPL). It does not require me or
the other person to share the information with anyone else.


Cheers,
Andi


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:21:41PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:11:32AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> > I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing.
> 
> Why is criticism disappointing? The goals of Linux and the Linux
> development model do not fit everybody's needs. Having an alternative

I would rather hear of OpenSolaris's benefits in their own right,
rather than just how it addresses alleged Linux deficiencies.

I don't know what the alleged benefits of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD are
either, but its developers haven't been telling us how it solves
all of Linux's problems here.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> today. may be not tomorrow. People are smart enough to not discard
> non-glibc ports and will come up with the solution.

Why don't you use glibc then? Your problem would be solved.
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD uses glibc according to their web site
http://www.us.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

I would say that currently the common element to all Debian ports
is glibc.

Please don't repeat your comments about the CDDL being superior.
Please give technical arguments instead.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Frank Küster]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Wouter Verhelst:
>> 
>> >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
>> >> contributed back to the community.
>> >
>> > No, that's not true.
>> >
>> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
>> > community.
>> 
>> Huh?  Why do you think so?
>
> Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.

I cannot find it there.  Moreover, if it was in there, the GPL would
fail the Dissident test and the Dessert Island test.

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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[John Hasler]

Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> community.

That's not true either.  Any distributed changes must be made available to
those to whom the changes were distributed.  In practice changes usually
become available to the community but that is not required.
-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst:
> 
> >> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> >> contributed back to the community.
> >
> > No, that's not true.
> >
> > Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> > community.
> 
> Huh?  Why do you think so?

Because that's what the GPL says, in relatively plain language.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Frank Küster]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Frank Küster writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>>
 On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.

 This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>>
>>> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
>>> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
>>> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
>>
>> I do not comprehend what he means with "CDDL works on a per-file basis,
>> GPL does not".  One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed
>> source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible
>> licenses.
>
> The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed
> files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and
> distribute the resulting executable.

Sorry, I didn't imagine that a license with such a clause exists, and
less that anybody would call it free.

Thanks for the clarification,
Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Florian Weimer]

* Wouter Verhelst:

>> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
>> contributed back to the community.
>
> No, that's not true.
>
> Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
> community.

Huh?  Why do you think so?


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Frank Küster writes:

> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
 CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>>
>>> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>>
>> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
>> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
>> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
>
> I do not comprehend what he means with "CDDL works on a per-file basis,
> GPL does not".  One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed
> source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible
> licenses.

The CDDL (based as it is on the MPL) allows you to mix CDDL-licensed
files in a project with files under CDDL-incompatible licenses and
distribute the resulting executable.  The GPL applies to the work as a
whole.  The relevant sections of the GPL are below; this trait is why
people say that, even though CDDL is a copyleft license, it allows
developers to create proprietary applications on top of the CDDL base.

  1.3. "Covered Software" means (a) the Original Software, or (b)
Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original
Software with files containing Modifications, in each case
including portions thereof.

  1.9. "Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any
of the following:
A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or
modification of the contents of a file containing Original
Software or previous Modifications;
B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or
previous Modification; or
C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available
under the terms of this License.

  1.12. "Source Code" means (a) the common form of computer software
code in which modifications are made and (b) associated
documentation included in or with such code.

  3.1. Availability of Source Code.
Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
available in Executable form must also be made available in Source
Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under
the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License
with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software
You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform
recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to
how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a
reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for
software exchange.

Does this help?

Michael Poole

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Frank Küster]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>>
>> This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>
> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.

I do not comprehend what he means with "CDDL works on a per-file basis,
GPL does not".  One can of course create a project made up of GPL'ed
source files and other source files with different, GPL-compatible
licenses. 

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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The GPL does not force developers to "contribute their changes back".
> > That's exactly the *point*.
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.

No, that's not true.

Any *distributed* changes to foo.c must be contributed back to the
community. There's a major difference here.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Frank Küster]

Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

;-)

This spares me an upload today...

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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Christian Perrier]

> 
> As for relicensing it, fuck off.  I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment for
> the Sodomotron 2000.
> 

...which could certainly have been written:


As one of the dpkg authors, I do not intent to relicence it.


I actually don't really see a reason for being so aggressive verbally
with someone we (you) disagree with. Erast Benson has been polite all
along this thread and I'm afraid that the above sentence can only help
many people reading the thread to keep convinced that Debian people
still need to grow up a little.

Up to now, this debate has been a debate between people with diverging
opinions. Avoiding to turn it into one of our usual flamewars would be
a good idea, imho.

I sometimes happen to turn rude myself also, either in electronic
communities or in the real life (though in real life, it becomes
harder because you're not hidden behind your screen). I usually try to
apologize later to people I may have hurted.






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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Joey Hess]

Michael Banck wrote:
> Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?

And do you realize that the debian installer is largely GPL licensed and
would present the same license incompatability issues as eg, dpkg?

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
> without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
> operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
> that those distributors can take advantage of "unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable".

Why is this a retort?  It's the GPL's explicit permission that you can
do this.  That's the *intention* of the license.

> Here again I think that it is DFSG-non-free and an improper
> application of copyright for an application to demand that an
> underlying library be made GPL compatible due merely to the
> application's distribution next to the library, especially given the
> mere aggregation language in section 2.

It is not due *merely* to the application's distribution next to the
library.  It is also due to the fact that the application is *linked*
with the library.  If it were not linked to it, there would be no
issue.

Keep in mind that with static libraries, the binary application walks
around with a *copy* of the library in it.  Surely the complete source
code for that binary includes, well, the *complete* source code for
it.  Keep in mind that changing the linking technology but preserving
the same intent does not affect the operation of the license,
especially given that even shared libraries still include parts of the
library code into the resulting binary.

Further discussion should be on debian-legal; it's increasingly
off-topic here.

Thomas


-- 
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:
>
>> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
>> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
>> necessary system header files with their application's source code.
>
> What is this "almost nobody"?

I will skip the lengthy enumeration of people who distribute binaries
without distributing the system header files -- distributors of whole
operating systems are relatively rare -- since the obvious retort is
that those distributors can take advantage of "unless that component
itself accompanies the executable".

Here again I think that it is DFSG-non-free and an improper
application of copyright for an application to demand that an
underlying library be made GPL compatible due merely to the
application's distribution next to the library, especially given the
mere aggregation language in section 2.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Miles Bader]

Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be 
> comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux.  Not disappointing 
> at all.

Well some points were factual, some were sun marketng, but it all did
seem to be tinged with a vaguely pejorative tone (against linux).  Using
a consistent and obvious pejorative tone isn't very constructive.

I suppose it's just the typical sun-weenie attitude, but for whatever
reason, just about everything Erast writes, true or not, sounds like it
was written by a sun PR person.  It's quite amazing reading through this
whole huge thread -- he can't seem to say _anything_ without giving the
impression that he's thinking "oh you poor deprived linux users..."

-miles
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.


-- 
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:

> I will refer back to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I
> wrote that we will have to disagree on the meaning of that phrase.
> You say that it includes system header files; I think a reasonable
> interpretation is that it means interface definition files for the
> source code rather than for external libraries.  I see no way to
> resolve the question until a court rules on it.

Huh?  I do.  We can ask the authors of the license what they think.
After all, we are talking about Debian here, and Debian's policy is to
follow the authors' interpretations of their license.

Thomas


-- 
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:
>
>> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
>> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
>> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
>> making modifications.  For applications -- which is the case in
>> question -- that preferred form does not include system header files,
>> therefore the system header files are not part of the application's
>> source code.
>
> You are not bothering to read section three which says, actually:
>
> "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 modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the executable."
>
> Note carefully: "any associated interface definition files".

I will refer back to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, where I
wrote that we will have to disagree on the meaning of that phrase.
You say that it includes system header files; I think a reasonable
interpretation is that it means interface definition files for the
source code rather than for external libraries.  I see no way to
resolve the question until a court rules on it.

Michael Poole


-- 
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:

> Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
> awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
> necessary system header files with their application's source code.

What is this "almost nobody"?

Debian most certainly does distribute the necessary system files.

Moreover, this requirement only attaches if you are distributing
binaries.  If you are not distributing binaries, then you don't need
section three at all, and section two does not require that.

Thomas


-- 
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:

> Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
> in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
> "Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications.  For applications -- which is the case in
> question -- that preferred form does not include system header files,
> therefore the system header files are not part of the application's
> source code.

You are not bothering to read section three which says, actually:

"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 modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable."

Note carefully: "any associated interface definition files".


Thomas


-- 
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:
>
>> 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.
>
> The latter may be correct, but is irrelevant to section 3.  Section
> three does not limit its scope to that, but *explicitly* mentions such
> header files.  Distributing them is a condition of distributing the
> binary.

Section 3 requires that you distribute the source code for a work (or,
in the non-DFSG-case, a written offer to provide the source code).
"Source code" is defined to be the preferred form of the work for
making modifications.  For applications -- which is the case in
question -- that preferred form does not include system header files,
therefore the system header files are not part of the application's
source code.

Treating system headers as part of the source code means we would be
awash in GPL violations, since almost nobody includes all the
necessary system header files with their application's source code.
Looking at the system header files as a "major component[] of the
operating system", per the end of section 3, is a red herring.

Michael Poole


-- 
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:

> 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.

The latter may be correct, but is irrelevant to section 3.  Section
three does not limit its scope to that, but *explicitly* mentions such
header files.  Distributing them is a condition of distributing the
binary.


-- 
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:

> Explain please.
>
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community. 

No.  Any change to foo.c can be kept entirely private if you wish. The
GPL only requires that *if* you choose to distribute your
modification, you must do so with full source code and under the terms
of the GPL itself.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>> >
>> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
>> 
>> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
>> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
>> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.
>
> It makes no sense at all, therefore it is both incomprehensible and
> gibberish (they're roughly synonyms).
>
>   incomprehensible
>2: difficult to understand
>
>   gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
>  2. Incomprehensible, [or ...]
>
> Grow up, and find something less crazy to do than picking on people
> bigger than you.

Those are strong words from someone who admits he cannot parse a
simple sentence and supports his assertion with what can only be
_intentionally misleading_ selective quoting.  The rest of that
definition of gibberish makes it clear you are full of it:

 1. Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language;
unmeaning words.
[1913 Webster]

 2. Incomprehensible, obscure, or pretentious technical talk
or writing; excessively obscure jargon.
[PJC]

Only quoting the first part of the second definition changes the
meaning significantly -- but that is what is necessary to make it
apply at all.

The other definitions for incomprehensible are similarly distinct from
the narrow meaning that you attempted to apply.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adam Heath]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> > > sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
> > >
> > > Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
> > > happen pretty soon.

This is you saying linux suxors.  I mean, c'mon, OpenSolaris is the new kid on
the block; stop being such a bully.

> > > The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> > > and at which point?
> >
> > Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
> > they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
> > them to cooperate with you.
>
> this is how you(Linux-centric) person reads my e-mail. Other people
> might think differently. So, please add *I think* next time you answer
> to me.

There is no other way to interpet it.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> >> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
> >
> > This is incomprehensible gibberish.
> 
> This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
> wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
> neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.

It makes no sense at all, therefore it is both incomprehensible and
gibberish (they're roughly synonyms).

  incomprehensible
   2: difficult to understand

  gibberish \gib"ber*ish\ (j[i^]b"b[~e]r*[i^]sh or
 2. Incomprehensible, [or ...]

Grow up, and find something less crazy to do than picking on people
bigger than you.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Erast Benson said
> 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

We do?  Where can I download it?  www.nexenta.com just points at
www.gnusolaris.org, but that page still requires http auth to see.

-rob
-- 
Yeaah, the hammer game!  Kill it, kill it, make it dead, whack it!


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Russ Allbery]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:

>> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
>> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
>> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...

> I think that Sun did just that, and the CDDL is doing exactly what they
> intended it to do.

Well, in that case no one has any problems except for the people who
missed the memos and are trying to do Debian/Solaris.  I feel for them,
and wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Maybe Debian/DOS would be an easier nut to crack?  :)

-- 
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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:04:09PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
> > they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
> > them to cooperate with you.
> 
> this is how you(Linux-centric) person reads my e-mail. Other people
> might think differently. So, please add *I think* next time you answer
> to me.

Given that the only released product Debian has is, uhm, a Linux 
distribution, I think[1] my response is unsurprising. But if you want to 
be a cock, feel free. So far, the only thing you've offered Debian is 
the opportunity to ship your project. Which, thanks to the marvels of 
open source, we could do anyway if we wanted. You're asking for quite a 
lot in return.

[1] I did consider just putting "I think" somewhere in the headers to 
satisfy you, but I guess that might have seemed a touch petty.
-- 
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

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:18 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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...

Depends on what?
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
> 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.

So you are asking the dpkg copyright holders to change *their* licensing
to suit *your* needs? This is getting funnier and funnier.

Now here's the problem. Face it: there's no way you can convince all
dpkg copyright holders (and that's probably a lot of people) to
dual-license their code under a license that isn't even DFSG-free. What
are you proposing now to legally build a Debian OpenSolaris port?
(Yes, I'm asking just to know what weird idea will arise now.)
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[John Hasler]

Russ Allbery writes:
> Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is tricky and hard, and
> one should think very carefully about what distributions one wants to
> support and what licenses one will need to be compatible...

I think that Sun did just that, and the CDDL is doing exactly what they
intended it to do.

-- 
John Hasler


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Michael Poole]

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
>> CDDL works similar way, except on per-file basis.
>
> This is incomprehensible gibberish.

This is unsupportable hyperbole.  Erast's statement may be inapt,
wrong, misleading, or have any number of other flaws, but it is
neither incomprehensible nor gibberish.

Michael Poole


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Russ Allbery]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

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

I am quite content with binaries built from my GPL-licensed software being
illegal for a port using a CDDL-licensed libc to redistribute.  I agree
with the reason why that clause is in the GPL, and for software where I
don't want it to apply, I use a different license.

There is nothing to solve as far as I'm concerned.  The GPL is working
correctly.

This has nothing to do with non-glibc ports.  It has to do with ports
using a libc licensed under the CDDL, which other alternative libcs do not
use.  It is a problem specific to Solaris, and you should be arguing with
Sun about it, not with individuals who freely chose to use the GPL for
their software in full understanding of the implications.

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

That would certainly be the best solution (or second-best next to just
making the CDDL GPL-compatible).

Moral of the story: Licensing libc or other vital system libraries is
tricky and hard, and one should think very carefully about what
distributions one wants to support and what licenses one will need to be
compatible with before just slapping the same label on it as on all of
one's other software.

-- 
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

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:53:53AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

Whether the CDDL is GPL-compatible or not, whether it's decided to be
DFSG-compliant or not, the CDDL is a *bad* license from a Free Software
standpoint because it imposes conditions on users use of the code which
other Free Software licenses do not.  I don't see any incentive at all for
Debian, as an organization dedicated to Free Software, to try to "sort out"
this issue.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Dalibor Topic]

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: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:48:53PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> Lets assume you have GPL-ed project dpkg. Any change to foo.c must be
> contributed back to the community.

This is completely and fundamentally wrong.

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

This is incomprehensible gibberish.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Or, *freedoms*.  If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, 
> > they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their 
> > wares.
> 
> Please wake up. :-)

Why?  Living in a dream world with you seems far more entertaining.

> This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life.

Bwa.

Ha.

Ha.

> Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
> happen pretty soon.

Do you have *any* rational basis for making this statement?  Even *sun*
can't give a compelling reason for a sudden, massive stampede of existing
(and new) Linux users to suddenly up-and-switch OS.  I can see benefits in
the large-system market, but how many people have a 32-way box?  I doubt
that Solaris supports as much varied hardware as Linux does, despite your
claims of vendor support -- what percentage of the drivers for commodity x86
hardware in OpenSolaris were written by vendors?  Does OpenSolaris cleanly
install onto my laptop and support all of the hardware in it?

> The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> and at which point?

I think buffet car of your train may be serving kool-aid.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Hubert Chan]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:53 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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. ...

Only if you distribute a binary based on the changed foo.c.  And only if
someone asks you for the sources.

If you keep the binary to yourself, you don't have to release anything.

> 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.

And as Matthew has repeatedly pointed out, this will not help with
getting dpkg dual-licensed, since several dpkg copyright holders
probably do not want that.

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adam Heath]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, 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.

Haha.  You think you can just snap your fingers, and rewrite dpkg?  Do you
know how long it took to get to this point?  It took years to become *mostly*
stable(and it still has issues on occassion).  Have you even tried to look at
it's source?  Do you have any clue how much error checking it does?

ps: please look at it's source; then you won't be able to honestly say you've
rewritten it, as you would be corrupted.


As for relicensing it, fuck off.  I need to find a ClueBat(tm) attachment for
the Sodomotron 2000.



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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Palmer]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:51:31AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

That's not how the GPL works, but it's an amazingly common misconception.

> 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.

I'm sorry, could you point me to the part of the CDDL which guarantees paid
development of CDDL-covered work?  I must have missed that clause in my
(admittedly brief) reading of the CDDL.

> 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.

I have my doubts that any of your Os could be H.  What you've just described
here, though, is the LGPL.  So why didn't Sun just pick that licence instead
of writing a new GPL-incompatible one?

> Since Linux kernel suffers big time from not having wide HW vendors
> support.

It's a pest every now and then, but it doesn't appear to be killing Linux in
any major way.  The reason why more hardware vendors aren't supporting Linux
is fear and lack of percieved commercial benefit.  Neither of which your
average wintel hardware vendor is going to see any differently in
OpenSolaris.

There *are* ways around the "GPL all your source" problem in the kernel --
look at nVidia and ATI, for instance.  They're also amazingly good examples
of why proprietary drivers suck: they're not wonderfully stable, and are
missing (in the case of ATI, at least) support for a couple of fairly common
failure modes (like not handling resume at all well).  Open Source drivers
likely wouldn't suffer from those problems for more than a few days.

I see nothing in the CDDL which would magically ensure that vendors properly
and completely supported their hardware on OpenSolaris.

> 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.

There's quite a number of vendor-contributed drivers in the Linux kernel, so
I call bullshit.  On top of that, this exact argument was made about
proprietary software in general some years ago, about how Open Source could
never, ever succeed.  Yet, you don't have to look very far at all to see
what a crock of excrement that argument was.  I see the exact same crock
when I look at this new version, too.

> 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.

Never say never.

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

You're not exactly a proponent of Dale Carnegie's methods, are you?

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

You can have an openly-readable wiki without shipping code, you know.

> 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.

But if you're shipping infringing code to those who ask for it personally,
you're still infringing.

- Matt


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Palmer]

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

You appear to be pointing the blame for "duplication of work" all Debian's
way, when there are two parties who can do something about the problem --
and, when it comes down to it, the licence of the OpenSolaris libc might
have been less than entirely well chosen.

Now, I understand you may not want to anger our new Insect Overlords by
publically criticising the application of the CDDL to certain works, but
when it comes down to it, licencing the OpenSolaris libc under the CDDL is a
less-than-entirely-useful move, because it restricts exactly this kind of
use of the OpenSolaris libc that you propose.  Even glibc isn't licenced
this restrictively; it's LGPL.

Considering the age and extensive analysis of the GPL, I find it fairly
unlikely that the scenario you find yourself in wasn't considered at all by
the drafters of the CDDL, and by the people who chose to apply the CDDL to
the OpenSolaris libc.  The only two conclusions I can draw is that either
the lawyers thought that the scenario didn't apply, or that this kind of
work wasn't intended to be permitted.  The latter would be unpleasant, and
the former can only be resolved either through negotiation with copyright
holders of GPL works, or in a court of competent jurisdiction.

While relicencing or rewriting large chunks of the (GPLd) code on which
Nexenta will be based is a possibility, I'd talk to the people who are
responsible for the licencing of the OpenSolaris libc before getting too
noisy about Debian being to blame for any duplication of work that might
result.

> 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.

The current licencing of dpkg is "system runtime" independent, it's just not
"software licence" independent.

- Matt


-- 
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 22:22 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 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.

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. 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.

If Debian community willing to have GNU/Solaris port as a part of
official releases, it is up to Debian community.

This is my last e-mail, as a contribution to this thread.
It was a nice discussion after all. Thanks for all your input!

Erast


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:

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.


In fact, Debian and GPL software in general work just fine on non-GPL 
compatible platforms.  I use and distribute (even commercially) a number 
of GPLed programs compiled for the most closed, evil and proprietary libc 
in existence (msvc), and I have a full right to do so.  In fact, a good
deal of Debian packages compile and run using both CygWin and Microsoft 
libraries -- libraries that are shipped with the OS.


The only restriction is that I can't distribute GPLed things and MS 
Windows _together_.  This is purely intentional, and it was devised as a 
way to fight proprietary operating systems.  The OS exception is there to 
make the likes of Microsoft or Sun compelled to give us a set of 
well-defined freedoms.  That is, the licensing problems you have are not
a side issue that should be worked around, they arise from one of key 
goals of the GPL.


Regards,
--
/---\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
\---/
Segmentation fault (core dumped)


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:34:30PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

You're probably going to be waiting a long time. I suggest that
instead you think about doing something deserving of respect. Taking a
copy of solaris, written by other people, and a copy of Debian, also
written by other people, and then putting them next to each other, in
violation of the license on lots of these things? That is not
deserving of respect.

Coming along and telling us that the license we chose deliberately for
the purpose of prohibiting you from doing this is wrong? That's not
deserving of respect either.

Now go away and stop doing it.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Erast Benson]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:34 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> > capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> > sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
> > 
> > Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
> > happen pretty soon.
> > 
> > The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> > and at which point?
> 
> Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
> they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
> them to cooperate with you.

this is how you(Linux-centric) person reads my e-mail. Other people
might think differently. So, please add *I think* next time you answer
to me.

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]

[Hubert Chan]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:57:17 -0800, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good ...


Please look up the meaning of acronyms if you intend on using them.  I
do not think it means what you think it means.

DFSG = Debian Free Software Guidelines
see http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

All software in Debian _must_ be licensed under a DFSG-compatible
license.  The question was whether or not Nexenta wants to be an
official Debian port.  If, as David suggests, CDDL is not
DFSG-compatible, this already precludes GNU/Solaris from becoming an
official Debian port.

This does not mean that Nexenta cannot work with Debian, or with Debian
developers.  (In fact, Debian generally wants Debian-derivatives to work
with them.)  But this means that GNU/Solaris cannot be an official
Debian port.

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


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

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Gabriel Puliatti]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Or, *freedoms*.  If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, 
> > they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their 
> > wares.
> 
> Please wake up. :-)
> 
> This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.


Why? Othen than the typical "It's my toy and no one can have it!".
Solaris 10 is already free to download, and Sun is making profit of
hardware, and always has. Why would they not open it up? They don't need
it, and the community could help them.

> Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
> happen pretty soon.

What? Do you really think it's that easy?


> The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> and at which point?
> 
> Erast
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Gabriel Puliatti
predius.org

Q:  What do they call the alphabet in Arkansas?
A:  The impossible dream.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

[Matthew Garrett]

Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
> capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
> sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.
> 
> Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
> happen pretty soon.
> 
> The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
> and at which point?

Strangely enough, telling people that their project is doomed unless
they support your (so far unreleased) project is a poor way of getting
them to cooperate with you. How about you go away until you've made some
code available, and then we'll talk about this again?
-- 
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

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote:

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 only means that they can add any hooks within the CDDL code to their 
leisure.  All the juice can be kept within the proprietary file, and thus 
be not open in any way.



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.


And it is exactly the reasons why Linux kernel is as good as it is.  Have 
you used the proprietary nVidia drivers from around two years ago?  They 
used to cause kernel oopses around twice per day (within my usage 
patterns), often causing complete lock-up and even (in the very last oops) 
a massive filesystem corruption.


Armed with a backtrace, even with my meager kernel hacking skills, I would 
have a good chance at fixing the crasher had I access to the code.  And 
even if I didn't succeed, Debian developers and users include a multitude 
of people who can recite kernel code in their sleep.  Such a bug would be 
gone in no time.  Even if you disregard the ideologic reasons, being able 
to make code usable is an important freedom.


Since recently, I dare to use a newer version of the nVidia driver.  And 
yet, although that crasher bug is either gone or doesn't apply to the 
hardware I am using, the very first time X is started after a boot, it 
somehow assumes the console is only 80x25 big, making me unable to 
reasonably switch back to text mode which I prefer.  As a workaround, I 
need to start X, kill it, run SVGATextMode then start X again.  And, can I 
fix this annoyance myself?  No way.  I can either beg nVidia, use the 
crippled driver or suck it up.



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.


Uhm, who's left?  nVidia (an only for the 3D part), ATI, some wireless 
network adapters, and that's basically it.



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


Or, *freedoms*.  If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, 
they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their 
wares.


Regards,
--
/---\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet,
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
\---/
Segmentation fault (core dumped)


--
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 22:19 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Or, *freedoms*.  If a hardware vendor wants to profit from Linux users, 
> they need to lift the limitations on the access to knowledge about their 
> wares.

Please wake up. :-)

This will never happen. Nobody sane who spent 50$ millon dollars VC's
capital will open their IP for free. This is fact of life. And than
sooner Linux-kernel community will acknowlage it, it is better for them.

Major shift of Linux users to OpenSolaris-based distributions might
happen pretty soon.

The question is: whether Debian community wants to be on train or not
and at which point?

Erast


-- 
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:

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

[Dalibor Topic]

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

[Kenneth Pronovici]

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:26:51PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> 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.

I have nothing against CDDL, or OpenSolaris, or your new operating
system, and I never said I did.   I simply point out that you may not
have fully grasped the consequences of grafting Debian code into your
CDDL-licensed system.

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

Again: please stop mixing these two subjects.  This discussion has
nothing to do with non-glibc ports in general; it is specific to your
particular non-glibc port.  If you don't understand the distinction,
then ask for clarification!

You really need to start concentrating on what people are saying, not
what you think they mean.  When it comes to legal matters like this, the
Debian community generally expects people to be quite precise in their
wording.  The sooner you realize this, the better this discussion will
go for you.

KEN

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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]

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]

[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

[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 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 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: 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 20:00 +, 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

[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 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

[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 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: [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 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]