Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote: To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer scripts, added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright by Debian developers -- do they count? Upon rereading my sentence there, I see that it doesn't parse as correct english. I tried to express my belief, that packaging a software with Debian tools does not make the software itself a derived work. The other question is whether the package as a whole constitutes more than a medium of distribution but I believe it customary that maintainer scripts follow the upstream license, which alleviates this problem usually. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:12:18 +0100, David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote: To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer scripts, added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright by Debian developers -- do they count? Upon rereading my sentence there, I see that it doesn't parse as correct english. I tried to express my belief, that packaging a software with Debian tools does not make the software itself a derived work. The other question is whether the package as a whole constitutes more than a medium of distribution but I believe it customary that maintainer scripts follow the upstream license, which alleviates this problem usually. Customary, but not required. My maintainer scripts often use a compatible, but not identical, license. And, obviously, the copyright owner is different. manoj -- Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big difference. First, theft isn't an appropriate term to use about copyright violations -- you're not depriving anyone of their use. Don't buy into the FUD. With all due respect, and a certain unwillingness to get distracted from the main thread of discussion or to further inflame an already pretty volatile situation, I think that theft may in fact be the appropriate term to use here. The copyright holders of GPL works have made clear the terms under which others may use, incorporate or derive from those works. Erast appears to have built and distributed a system that deviates from those terms. He has constructed and subsequently distributed something that's apparently of value to him (otherwise he wouldn't have done it), at the expense of using software that he's not entitled to use for that purpose (as defined by the terms of the GPL, which is the authority granted to him by the copyright holders). Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Honestly, I wouldn't have replied to this at all except that you accused me of buying into the FUD. Just wanted to set the record straight. :) Whether Erast did so with malicious intent, that's another question entirely. And frankly, not one that I care to have answered. I mean, I'm sure Erast is a nice guy and all. But regardless, he's doing what he's doing; why he's doing it, or whether he even knows that what he's doing is wrong, is relatively unimportant. There, I'm all done now. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this case, anyway. I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained Debian tools in more ways than mere dynamic linking. That doesn't much matter -- Debian doesn't claim any copyright on its efforts in collecting work, so deriving from Debian doesn't involve any copyrights but that of the aggregate parts you use. The relevant parts are the licenses of individual packages that get linked against OpenSolaris' libc, and whether libc counts as a module [the program] contains and is thus covered as part of the complete source code as part of paragraph 3(a) of the GPL. To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, That's not actually the question -- the only derivative issue is that Nexenta's dpkg (eg) is a derivative of Debian's dpkg (or gcc is a derivative of upstream gcc) and thus covered by the GPL. For those playing along at home, this little exchange contains much of my misunderstanding of GPL-matters. After talking this over with Anthony on IRC, I now understand the whole thing better and will try to explain this in more detail: To decide how far the GPL requirements reach, first I have to disassemble the volume of a storage or distribution medium, since this has no relevance to our question (c.f. mere aggregation). I now have a pool of components (typically files). Those compiled from or consisting of GPL'ed source can obviously be tagged as GPL-requiring. If everyone follows the recommendation of embedding the standard GPL disclaimer in the binary, this is trivial by examining the resultant files. For every component now I have to decide whether it can be reasonably considered independent and separate work in itself. Obvious examples where this is the case include shell scripts being independent from /bin/sh or documentation being independent from everything else. Source archives by far and large[ex] are independent and separate of each other too. In the case of a source-only distribution, my analysis stops here because all components are now identified as independent and separate works which are merely aggregated and the GPL specifically does not apply to this situation. In the case of a binary distribution though, there are components left in the pool which are still to be considered. The interesting case is obviously, when one of those components is tagged as GPL-requiring. Let's consider this dpkg binary from the GNU/Solaris LiveCD, which I have loop mounted: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ ./dpkg bash: ./dpkg: No such file or directory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ Since the GNU libc I'm running locally is not binary compatible to the Sun libc against which the dpkg binary is linked. This is now the point: the binary is not independent any more and therefore the same sections [are distributed] as part of a whole [(i.e. /usr/bin/dpkg + /lib/libc.so)] which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License. This means that I need a GPL-compatible component in my pool to satisfy (transitively) all NEEDED[od] linkages to satisfy the GPL-requiring components library to the point of distributability. I'd like to add (d) distributing as source only. Compiling the whole thing on the users system Note that compiling Nexenta involves using gcc, so you'd need to cross-compile from a glibc system, or you'd have the same problem in that you'd be distributing libc and gcc (which is GPLed and links to libc) together. If gcc can bootstrap itself on OpenSolaris from their native compiler, this is only a matter of computing power and/or endurance. On other news, private communication by the gnusolaris.org people lead me to the conviction that they are internally working on resolving their problems with the legalese and we should give them a break. I will keep you informed about their progress. Ugh; giving people a break's a good thing, but doing things in private and behind closed doors isn't. Participating in Debian in public can be (unreasonably) rough, but closing yourself up from the community and having communication bottle necks isn't a win either. It was only a small notice, that they are soliciting legal help. I just wanted to demonstrate that they _are_ working on it in - what I believe - good faith and that therefore they should be given more time (you know lawyers) to resolve these problems. On the other hand I also do not want to forget this issue and will followup on it, if I receive no further messages. Everyone else is free to act as dictated by his or her conscience. I hear copyright holders have better leverage then
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Bill Gatliff writes: With all due respect, and a certain unwillingness to get distracted from the main thread of discussion or to further inflame an already pretty volatile situation, I think that theft may in fact be the appropriate term to use here. Theft, n.: 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. [1913 Webster] 2. The thing stolen. [R.] [1913 Webster] Infringing copyright is not theft, since nothing is removed from its rightful place. Similarly, the purported violation of the GPL in the main thread of discussion does not involve removal of any property. The authors of the GPL made clear what their intent was: to propagate certain freedoms to the users (in practice, recipients) of software, not to preserve anyone's physical property rights. Infringing those copyrights or hoarding those freedoms may be moral or legal wrongs of a degree similar to theft but they are _not_ theft. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Bill Gatliff writes: Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner is not being deprived of any property. Whether Erast did so with malicious intent, that's another question entirely. It is not. Theft requires intent as well as deprivation of property. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Bill Gatliff writes: Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner is not being deprived of any property. There's something darkly amusing about arguments coming from Free Software people that sound very close to intellectual property. I wonder if people will start suggesting copy protection with DMCA enforcement. :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Glenn: Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Bill Gatliff writes: Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner is not being deprived of any property. No, the owner hasn't been deprived. But the rights said owner conveyed via the GPL (which amount to some level of ownership, at least philosophically) have been deprived from the GNU/Solaris end users. It's the GNU/Solaris end users who have been stolen from. I'll give up now. Is that dead horse I smell? :) There's something darkly amusing about arguments coming from Free Software people that sound very close to intellectual property. I wonder if people will start suggesting copy protection with DMCA enforcement. :) Yea, what we need here are some software dongles. Free Software dongles. :P (kidding!!) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:10:06 -0600, Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [...] No, the owner hasn't been deprived. But the rights said owner conveyed via the GPL (which amount to some level of ownership, at least philosophically) have been deprived from the GNU/Solaris end users. It's the GNU/Solaris end users who have been stolen from. I'll give up now. Is that dead horse I smell? :) I don't know, but maybe we should keep beating it until the smell goes away. :) -- 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:18:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. Speaking of antagonistic... Huh? Kenneth's responses have ranged from being dismissive to hostile. That would be antagonistic in that: * it makes the problem overly personal -- I'd be making you, personally, out to be the problem rather than saying your arguments or claims are wrong and should be abandoned; * it's overly critical -- portions of your responses might have been dismissive or the OpenSolaris guys' work, and it might've been possible to interpret your responses in a hostile manner, but that doesn't mean such an interpretation is correct or the most important aspect of your mails; * it's also blatantly dishonest -- not all of your mails have been dismissive to hostile. The latter's the case for Erast too -- take [0] eg, which doesn't seem remotely antagonistic, let alone showing a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. Well, yes, but my statement wasn't that broadly worded - note I said many of Erast's responses not just Erast's responses. Perhaps the word many is an overly broad characterization, but there were quite a few, especially in the part of the thread I originally replied to (which is why I replied to him in the first place). Anyway, I don't feel we need to go into this any deeper. I understand the point you're trying to make. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Friday 11 November 2005 19:36, Erast Benson wrote: On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote: Let's consider this dpkg binary from the GNU/Solaris LiveCD, which I have loop mounted: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ ./dpkg bash: ./dpkg: No such file or directory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ Since the GNU libc I'm running locally is not binary compatible to the Sun libc against which the dpkg binary is linked. This is now the point: the binary is not independent any more and therefore the same sections [are distributed] as part of a whole [(i.e. /usr/bin/dpkg + /lib/libc.so)] which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License. David, [Running this dpkg binary on Solaris 8 through 11 would work, it is therefore independent] Erast [First please be advised that I will copy further private communications from you verbatim to public mailinglists as I feel necessary to facilitate the public discussion about this.] We can agree that dpkg is as independent as other linked binaries, which can be run on Solaris and OpenSolaris and your distribution. What I don't think, is that this is independent enough. Being able to run the dpkg binary on a older version of the same library doesn't change the requirements when they are distributed together. For me, this sounds similar to saying that trains are independent of tracks because they can drive on german and austrian tracks. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Bill Gatliff writes: Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner is not being deprived of any property. There's something darkly amusing about arguments coming from Free Software people that sound very close to intellectual property. I wonder if people will start suggesting copy protection with DMCA enforcement. :) I guess you missed [0] then? [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00609.html Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Scribit Anthony Towns dies 11/11/2005 hora 16:43: The problem is a technicality, not a moral or practical difference from the GPL's expectations: you still have the source to OpenSolaris libc, and you still have permission to modify it, redistribute it, sell it, etc. Didn't someone ask for the source of some other packages (sunw*) that are not, at the moment, available (and won't in the future, IIUC)? I had understood that the problem is that some of the source needed to compile core packages of Nexenta are not even open source... Curiously, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:48:20 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this case, anyway. I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained Debian tools in more ways than mere dynamic linking. That doesn't much matter -- Debian doesn't claim any copyright on its efforts in collecting work, so deriving from Debian doesn't involve any copyrights but that of the aggregate parts you use. Every single one of my packages has software that is under copyright by me, and distributed under various free licenses. So, if you derive from Debian, if you happen to use any packages I maintain (make? flex?) does indeed involve copyrights apart from the copyright of aggregated works. To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer scripts, added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright by Debian developers -- do they count? manoj -- He who has a shady past knows that nice guys finish last. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 05:18, Anthony Towns wrote: For those playing along at home, the CDDL isn't GPL compatible, and OpenSolaris's libc is CDDL'ed -- so anything GPLed can't link to libc since that would violate 3(a) [0]. The reason GPL'ed software is okay for regular Solaris is the major components exception, but that only applies if those components don't accompan[y] the executable. [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this case, anyway. I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained Debian tools in more ways than mere dynamic linking. To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, but I can't imagine a LiveCD, looking and feeling like a Debian system, which indeed employs said tools and methods by incorporating them source- and binarywise NOT being a derivative work of said tools. But IANAL, so I don't know whether the distinction between merely aggregated applications on the System and the System itself holds up. So there're three fairly simple ways around that issue: (a) [seperate distribution] (b) [relicinsing OpenSolaris' libc] (c) [porting glibc] I'd like to add (d) distributing as source only. Compiling the whole thing on the users system changes the deliverable from Debian lookalike to CD-Image builder. The latter is subtly different by shipping Debians tools not as an integral part of a system but as one of many possible implementations of the various command line interfaces. Of course thusly built ISO images wouldn't be distributable, but IIRC this would be similar to the pine and qmail situation, which also prohibit (modified) binary distribution. On other news, private communication by the gnusolaris.org people lead me to the conviction that they are internally working on resolving their problems with the legalese and we should give them a break. I will keep you informed about their progress. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:40:07PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: Also, with this email, I am making a formal request: I am the original author of DBS, the most widely used patch system available in debian. This system tends to want to be embedded inside each and every package that makes use of it(altho, this is not always the case nowadays, with dbs.deb and cdbs). I therefor make an official request that you remove all distributition of all such dbs-derived packages until such time as this mismatch is fixed. Are you going to send the same to Mepis (www.mepis.org) ? As far as I know they don't release source debs either and are a more interesting target. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this case, anyway. I consider a Debian-derived distribution a derived work of the contained Debian tools in more ways than mere dynamic linking. That doesn't much matter -- Debian doesn't claim any copyright on its efforts in collecting work, so deriving from Debian doesn't involve any copyrights but that of the aggregate parts you use. The relevant parts are the licenses of individual packages that get linked against OpenSolaris' libc, and whether libc counts as a module [the program] contains and is thus covered as part of the complete source code as part of paragraph 3(a) of the GPL. To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said tools, That's not actually the question -- the only derivative issue is that Nexenta's dpkg (eg) is a derivative of Debian's dpkg (or gcc is a derivative of upstream gcc) and thus covered by the GPL. The FSF argues (and Debian accepts) that dynamic linking should be legally treated the same as static linking, and thus that an executable that would contain libc when statically linked must be treated as containing libc when dynamically linked too. In this case, that's a pretty tenuous argument, but in other cases it's not so tenuous (linking to OpenSSL for example) and in such cases it has been an effective argument at getting libraries relicensed to be GPL compatible (such as for Qt). (Actually, it's probably worth noting that the core argument -- that /usr/bin/dpkg contains libc and thus that the former can't be distributed under the GPL without also distributing the source to the latter under the GPL -- is tenuous enough that actually following through on the legal threats we've seen could result in the argument being rejected, giving a precedent for all the folks who'd like to modify GPLed programs to rely on proprietary libraries.) I'd like to add (d) distributing as source only. Compiling the whole thing on the users system Note that compiling Nexenta involves using gcc, so you'd need to cross-compile from a glibc system, or you'd have the same problem in that you'd be distributing libc and gcc (which is GPLed and links to libc) together. On other news, private communication by the gnusolaris.org people lead me to the conviction that they are internally working on resolving their problems with the legalese and we should give them a break. I will keep you informed about their progress. Ugh; giving people a break's a good thing, but doing things in private and behind closed doors isn't. Participating in Debian in public can be (unreasonably) rough, but closing yourself up from the community and having communication bottle necks isn't a win either. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big difference. First, theft isn't an appropriate term to use about copyright violations -- you're not depriving anyone of their use. Don't buy into the FUD. Second, not only are they not depriving anyone of the software, they're working to make it available, at no cost, to a wider audience -- those people who'd like to use dpkg, but aren't willing to give up dtrace eg. For some people, making source more widely available is a bad thing -- it undercuts their monopoly rights to distribute the source, and thus the business model that funds their development. For free software developers, there's no such business model though, all it does is undercut the amount of software available for Linux but not Solaris, and the ability to say this library isn't GPL-compatible, so you can't link it with the GPLed executable. Other examples of that are Qt (historically), OpenSSL (currently), and possible (future) proprietary extensions to things like gcc. However the CDDL'ed libc is *not* a proprietary extension -- it's free software available under terms very similar to (1) and (2) of the GPL. The problem is a technicality, not a moral or practical difference from the GPL's expectations: you still have the source to OpenSolaris libc, and you still have permission to modify it, redistribute it, sell it, etc. Erast hasn't done *anything* to address or even acknowledge the CDDL/GPL compatibility issue. His system as currently implemented clearly depends on linking CDDL works with GPL works. The authors of the software he's distributing with his system haven't given him permission to do that. Quite simple, actually. For every complex problem, there is an answer that is short, simple and wrong. BTW, a more accurate claim would be I haven't seen Erast do anything to address the issue. Maybe you've got a right to see everything Erast and his colleagues do, but I'd bet you don't actually get to. To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting Debian's interests. Debian's interests are in the promotion of free software, not the promotion of highly technical legalistic parsing of copyright rules and licenses. If there weren't any copyright, Debian would still exist, and philosophically we'd be encouraging the release of source code and be advocating against treating source code as a secret. The above is fundamentally a distraction from our goals -- it's an important one, because we like to play by the book rather than pretending to be above the law, and since copyright does exist helping people use it effectively in accordance with our goals is useful; but Debian's not about IP rights, it's about free software. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:40:27PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. Speaking of antagonistic... Huh? Kenneth's responses have ranged from being dismissive to hostile. That would be antagonistic in that: * it makes the problem overly personal -- I'd be making you, personally, out to be the problem rather than saying your arguments or claims are wrong and should be abandoned; * it's overly critical -- portions of your responses might have been dismissive or the OpenSolaris guys' work, and it might've been possible to interpret your responses in a hostile manner, but that doesn't mean such an interpretation is correct or the most important aspect of your mails; * it's also blatantly dishonest -- not all of your mails have been dismissive to hostile. The latter's the case for Erast too -- take [0] eg, which doesn't seem remotely antagonistic, let alone showing a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00165.html This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of your userspace on that someone's source code. That's a very proprietary attitude about source code, don't you think? Er, in what sense? Proprietary doesn't just mean not open source -- its more general meaning is a sense of ownership of something, which in turn means the right and ability to exercise some a degree of control over your property. One way in which people get proprietary about things is to charge rents and fees for their exploitation; the other way is to refuse them to be allowed to be exploited in various ways -- such as by using them for military or anti-government purposes, or by using them without helping make the author famous, or by using them without establishing a relationship with the author. Copyright law isn't the only way you can establish proprietary interests in software; patent law's another, as is establishing a monopoly on the tools you need to work on the software. Public opinion and moral suasion can work too, though; and while that's more democratic and less liable to certain abuses, it's still got many of the main drawbacks of proprietary software: it discourages innovation and reuse. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:09, Erast Benson wrote: David, this is the place were source code lives: http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu or http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast Please read http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites P.S. do not top-post ... please. Dear Alex! On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote: John Hasler wrote: David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. --cut-- -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast, Unless you provide a written offer, good for three years, to supply the source on request, you *must* provide the source code for a binary alongside the binary. That means that the source code for a specific version of the binary must be downloadable before you can provide that binary. Providing binaries without the appropriate source code (as required under 3(a) of the GPL) or a written offer for the same (GPL 3(b)) is a violation of the license, and thus infringes the copyright of the authors. OK. point taken. This will be fixed soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which bits is planned to be release by the end of this week. Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust) in your open source project ? -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 02:26, Erast Benson wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast, Unless you provide a written offer, good for three years, to supply the source on request, you *must* provide the source code for a binary alongside the binary. That means that the source code for a specific version of the binary must be downloadable before you can provide that binary. Providing binaries without the appropriate source code (as required under 3(a) of the GPL) or a written offer for the same (GPL 3(b)) is a violation of the license, and thus infringes the copyright of the authors. OK. point taken. This will be fixed soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which bits is planned to be release by the end of this week. Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust) in your open source project ? All corresponding sources available at http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources. Download page has a link to the /sources directory. And from now on, we are going to publish source code first, than binaries. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust) in your open source project ? George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objections that have already been made. It's quite clear what our issues with Nexenta are now - shouting at them further is unlikely to help things get resolved to our satisfaction. (This does, of course, assume that the Nexenta guys are willing to actually discuss the issues rather than ignoring them. I'll remain optimistic for a while) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, this is another violation. The source comes first, then binaries next to it. Hm, I wonder how could you make people believe (trust) in your open source project ? George, I don't think there's much point in repeating objections that have already been made. It's quite clear what our issues with Nexenta are now - shouting at them further is unlikely to help things get resolved to our satisfaction. (This does, of course, assume that the Nexenta guys are willing to actually discuss the issues rather than ignoring them. I'll remain optimistic for a while) Thank you Matthew and all participants! Just to assure all Debian Project team: Nexenta team is very serious about everything being said and will follow all suggestions/requests in this thread. And may be one day Nexenta OS core will become part of Debian Project. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting Debian's interests. Debian's interests may also be avoiding to be perceived by the majority of other free software projects contributors as an aggressive community. I think this is the main point of Anthony Towns posts. We can discuss with people from the Nexenta and Opensolaris project in a civilized manner. Just standing up and shouting you are wrong in the face of people which you disagrre with has never proven to be a very efficient way to reach a mutual agreement even on very tough issues (and EVEN if you are actually right). This is how things work in real life. Again, I'm not discussing whether claims of all people jumping on Nexenta and Erast toesI personnally think you/we are right on these claims. However, this IMHO does not justify the way we are telling this to them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:53:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. Speaking of antagonistic... Huh? This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of your userspace on that someone's source code. That's a very proprietary attitude about source code, don't you think? Er, in what sense? KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Scribit Alex Ross dies 08/11/2005 hora 11:36: Overnight we actually did remove the downloads. I'm downloading the LiveCD image right now from a link in the download page[1]. Do I have to understand that you corrected the GPL violation problem and that I can find all the sources the GPL gives me the right to get? Doubtfully, Nowhere man [1] http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Download -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, this is the place were source code lives: http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu , Permission Denied | Insufficient permissions to access /gnusolaris1/gnu ` Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote: www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs (i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface. this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Are you developer and wanna help us? I'm a user of your software, who insists on his license-granted rights to the source of the binaries he received. That's why it's called Open Source. I would already be satisfied with a tar-ball of your development directory as long as I can build from there and it has appropriate (i.e. GPL compatible) licensing terms attached. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. Please! Could you give the man a break? I agree with you that they're not fullfilling every little drop of ink in the GPL and that's not acceptable, but, man, please, let them work. It's ok to point them their mistake, but let them fix it. Give them some time. They cannot go from violating to not-violating in zero time. They are clearly willing to correct their mistakes, it's not like they'll just leave thing as they are. Give them some time! Regards, Andy.
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
* Andy Teijelo Pérez: El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. Please! Could you give the man a break? I agree with you that they're not fullfilling every little drop of ink in the GPL and that's not acceptable, but, man, please, let them work. It's ok to point them their mistake, but let them fix it. They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*, exploiting the GNU and Solaris trademarks.
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051108 07:11]: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. You could send them e.g. a DMCA Takedown Notice. Especially as they didn't listen before. Of course only if you're the author of one of the relevant programms. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:43:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: You could send them e.g. a DMCA Takedown Notice. Especially as they didn't listen before. Of course only if you're the author of one of the relevant programms. you could also send their isp(s) and/or hosting provider(s) said takedown notice. it would be most unfortunate if things need to come to that... but it is an option (and an effective one ime) sean -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote: www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs (i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface. this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Are you developer and wanna help us? I'm a user of your software, who insists on his license-granted rights to the source of the binaries he received. That's why it's called Open Source. I would already be satisfied with a tar-ball of your development directory as long as I can build from there and it has appropriate (i.e. GPL compatible) licensing terms attached. OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our modifications for every package we are using. We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we fix some internal problems. Eventually all these tarballs should migrate under http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt repository. Please notice, that some tarballs are in the middle of development, so it is really really latest stuff. I hope we didn't miss anything, let us know if you find some. Thanks! Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote: OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our modifications for every package we are using. We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we fix some internal problems. Eventually all these tarballs should migrate under http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt repository. Please notice, that some tarballs are in the middle of development, so it is really really latest stuff. I hope we didn't miss anything, let us know if you find some. This is a great start, but I'm getting tired of doing your homework: For example, I have found http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on the ISO image, but no corresponding source package under sources/ or http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/source/Sources Further I'm also still searching for the Sources for the sunw* packages needed to build the rest of dpkgs build environment. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Andy Teijelo Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. Please! Could you give the man a break? I agree with you that they're not fullfilling every little drop of ink in the GPL and that's not acceptable, but, man, please, let them work. It's ok to point them their mistake, but let them fix it. Give them some time. They cannot go from violating to not-violating in zero time. That is not correct. Deleting the binaries takes less than no time. Do we need to file a formal copyright violation request? The law provides a way to force websites to immediately remove infringing materials. They are clearly willing to correct their mistakes, it's not like they'll just leave thing as they are. Give them some time! I don't believe this for a minute. There are insurmountable licensing restrictions, and the time is an excuse.
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote: OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our modifications for every package we are using. We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we fix some internal problems. Eventually all these tarballs should migrate under http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt repository. Please notice, that some tarballs are in the middle of development, so it is really really latest stuff. I hope we didn't miss anything, let us know if you find some. This is a great start, but I'm getting tired of doing your homework: For example, I have found http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on the ISO image, but no corresponding source package under sources/ or http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/source/Sources It is there now... thanks for noticing that! Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Andy Teijelo Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: El Martes, 8 de Noviembre de 2005 1:11, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. Please! Could you give the man a break? I agree with you that they're not fullfilling every little drop of ink in the GPL and that's not acceptable, but, man, please, let them work. It's ok to point them their mistake, but let them fix it. Give them some time. They cannot go from violating to not-violating in zero time. That is not correct. Deleting the binaries takes less than no time. Do we need to file a formal copyright violation request? The law provides a way to force websites to immediately remove infringing materials. They are clearly willing to correct their mistakes, it's not like they'll just leave thing as they are. Give them some time! I don't believe this for a minute. There are insurmountable licensing restrictions, and the time is an excuse. Overnight we actually did remove the downloads. Today we posted this on the debian-devel: http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources Note that we have limited resources. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On 11/8/05, Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that we have limited resources. How is that relevant?
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote: OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our modifications for every package we are using. We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we fix some internal problems. Eventually all these tarballs should migrate under http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt repository. Please notice, that some tarballs are in the middle of development, so it is really really latest stuff. I hope we didn't miss anything, let us know if you find some. The source and binaries *must* match, period. You can't have tarballs being constantly upgraded, and the binaries not, or vice versa. The source+binary must be done as a whole unit. Also, with this email, I am making a formal request: I am the original author of DBS, the most widely used patch system available in debian. This system tends to want to be embedded inside each and every package that makes use of it(altho, this is not always the case nowadays, with dbs.deb and cdbs). I therefor make an official request that you remove all distributition of all such dbs-derived packages until such time as this mismatch is fixed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 20:29, Erast Benson wrote: For example, I have found http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i 386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on the ISO image, but no corresponding source package under sources/ or http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/source/Sources It is there now... thanks for noticing that! Thanks, Further I'm also still searching for the Sources for the sunw* packages needed to build the rest of dpkgs build environment. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote: OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our modifications for every package we are using. We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every night until we fix some internal problems. Eventually all these tarballs should migrate under http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt repository. Please notice, that some tarballs are in the middle of development, so it is really really latest stuff. I hope we didn't miss anything, let us know if you find some. The source and binaries *must* match, period. You can't have tarballs being constantly upgraded, and the binaries not, or vice versa. The source+binary must be done as a whole unit. Also, with this email, I am making a formal request: I am the original author of DBS, the most widely used patch system available in debian. This system tends to want to be embedded inside each and every package that makes use of it(altho, this is not always the case nowadays, with dbs.deb and cdbs). I therefor make an official request that you remove all distributition of all such dbs-derived packages until such time as this mismatch is fixed. all latest source code corresponds to latest binaries. so, there is no mismatch. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: They began distributing binaries to a large audience *after* they were notified of the problems. This gives the impression that they don't care about GPL compliance, and want to gain publicity *now*, exploiting the GNU and Solaris trademarks. So this would be much the same as the DCC Alliance? Shouldn't we then take the view that as fellow free software travellers we should discuss the concerns in confidence? Or is it more akin to Debian's pre-2001 efforts on GPL compliance, where we'd frequently find ourselves accidently distributing binaries without corresponding source, due to a lack of infrastructure to track which source was necessary? In which case, shouldn't we encourage people to make their best efforts, but acknowledge the shortcomings and trust that things will be improved in time, and perhaps further note that that will be faster with our help? Or perhaps it's more akin to Debian's current handling of installer images, which aren't guaranteed to have their sources available? Should we drop everything to ensure that env-pressed 1.09's source is available for the 20051018 unstable images, instead of just 1.10's? In which case shouldn't we be being circumspect about mentioning the problem, and quietly working to fix it, and thus both retaining our credibility and strengthening our commitment to free software? I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I would love a viable Debian-based Solaris system, and I think it's absolutely wonderful that we have so much software available under free licenses. But the CDDL/GPL issue is a big one, and it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't leave people feeling like their code is being misappropriated. Pushing out CD images despite these concerns being raised isn't a good way of inspiring trust and cooperation, and the fact that these concerns still haven't been answered in an even vaguely coherent way doesn't reassure me at all. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I think that in this instant case, the hostility is the allegation that a Debian-based GNU/Solaris system as described by Erast isn't possible. Even when pressed, Erast hasn't addressed the CDDL/GPL incompatibility issue. And that's obviously a topic that plenty of people in the Debian crowd have an opinion on. :) I don't see it as hostility, I see it as an attempt to enforce the GPL. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Erast Benson wrote: The source and binaries *must* match, period. You can't have tarballs being constantly upgraded, and the binaries not, or vice versa. The source+binary must be done as a whole unit. Also, with this email, I am making a formal request: I am the original author of DBS, the most widely used patch system available in debian. This system tends to want to be embedded inside each and every package that makes use of it(altho, this is not always the case nowadays, with dbs.deb and cdbs). I therefor make an official request that you remove all distributition of all such dbs-derived packages until such time as this mismatch is fixed. all latest source code corresponds to latest binaries. so, there is no mismatch. It is if they are updated with different frequencies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:39:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I don't mean to excuse the near-hostility that's evident now, and I agree that we should give OpenSolaris some time to get everything straightened out (that's only fair). However, I suspect that if the original announcement and subsequent conversation had been handled a little better on the OpenSolaris side, Debian people would have been more willing to cut them some slack. You'll note that even in the initial part of the thread when Debian folks were (generally) being polite, many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of your userspace on that someone's source code. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:29:31PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: I think that in this instant case, the hostility is the allegation that a Debian-based GNU/Solaris system as described by Erast isn't possible. Of course it's possible. Trivially: you do it by buying a majority of shares in all the companies that own rights to OpenSolaris, and rerelease it under the GPL. There are far easier ways than that available, too. Telling someone that what they're trying to achieve is impossible is generally hostile in any case, in the sense of marked by features that oppose constructive treatment or development. How do you go from sorry, can't be done. to constructive development? Even when pressed, Erast hasn't addressed the CDDL/GPL incompatibility issue. As is pressing people. You can justify hostility, certainly; but it's at least worth trying honest and cooperative as an approach first. I don't see it as hostility, I see it as an attempt to enforce the GPL. When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms, what's your reaction: (a) gosh, what can I do to convince the author to give it to me under the GPL? (b) you aren't/shouldn't be allowed to do that. stop now. (c) *shrug* I'd expect a free software supporter to choose some variation on one of those; and a free software advocate to choose one of the first two. Of those two, I think the first is much more effective. And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:23:30AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I would love a viable Debian-based Solaris system, and I think it's absolutely wonderful that we have so much software available under free licenses. But the CDDL/GPL issue is a big one, For those playing along at home, the CDDL isn't GPL compatible, and OpenSolaris's libc is CDDL'ed -- so anything GPLed can't link to libc since that would violate 3(a) [0]. The reason GPL'ed software is okay for regular Solaris is the major components exception, but that only applies if those components don't accompan[y] the executable. So there're three fairly simple ways around that issue: (a) go the www.sunfreeware.com route, and have a separate repository for GPLed stuff. This has arguably worked for Debian in the past, with Qt distributed on the main site, and KDE distributed externally. It's not very good though. (b) get the OpenSolaris libc relicensed to something GPL compatible; this might be plausible depending on whether the rationale for the CDDL (initially we will not be able to release the source for all of Solaris) applies to the libc code or not; it's possible that it doesn't. Debian's obviously had success with this in the past. (c) get glibc working on OpenSolaris, and make it fairly easy to choose whether to build with OpenSolaris's libc or GNU's libc, eg by having sol-gcc build with the former and gcc with the latter. Debian already supports multiple libc's (cf, dietlibc), so this oughtn't to be very challenging, at least after any work to get glibc working on OpenSolaris. Heck, as far as (a) goes, if Nexenta wanted to setup a minimal distribution of just the kernel and libs, without all the l33t GNU stuff that'd probably allow Debian to distribute the rest of it. The caveat to doing that for regular Solaris or Windows is the We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component, which wouldn't apply in this case. The issue's not really that difficult -- its like has been solved before repeatedly -- and making it into a bigger issue than it is doesn't really help anyone. For comparison, the GNOME Project launched in August '97, noting problems with the KDE/Qt mix [1], it then took Debian 'til September '98 to get serious about pulling it [2], which then happened a month later [3]. Cheers, aj [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this case, anyway. [1] http://lwn.net/2001/0816/a/gnome.php3 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/09/msg00285.html [3] http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms, what's your reaction: (a) gosh, what can I do to convince the author to give it to me under the GPL? (b) you aren't/shouldn't be allowed to do that. stop now. (c) *shrug* My reaction is a combination of (a) and (b). However, the problem is that we were speaking to people who cannot relicense the software in question. So (a) isn't an option. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:55:41PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: You'll note that even in the initial part of the thread when Debian folks were (generally) being polite, From the very first response: ] and openness. ] You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it ] means. .. ] Not to poop on your parade, but please, next time you go to announce ] something to a technical list like d-devel -- drop the marketing guff, ] just stick to the useful info. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00052.html Further on in that subthread, after Erast extolls the virtues of OpenSolaris, there's Hamish's take: ] Why would this be of interest to Debian developers? .. ] I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is ] disappointing. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00073.html Second top level response was Florian's: ] How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute ] software which is licensed under the GNU General Public License and is ] linked against a libc which is covered by the CDDL? Have you ported ] GNU libc? .. ] This web site requires authentication. .. ] You should drop all references to the Solaris trademark because ] Sun's terms of use are anything but open (worse than Debian's). And ] of course, compliance with the GPL in all aspects is very desirable, ] too. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00065.html Does the above sound more like something fun you'd like to hack on with a coworker, or a complaint from a manager who just doesn't get it? Third top level response was Michael Banck's, which was mostly positive, then, but the rest of that subthread covered licensing problems, devolving into the exchange The question is, are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems? To which my answer was yes.. many of Erast's responses were at best antagonistic, and at worst showed a complete disregard for what Debian is all about. Speaking of antagonistic... This strikes me as a rather poor way to start a relationship with someone, especially when you've just based most of your userspace on that someone's source code. That's a very proprietary attitude about source code, don't you think? Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: Loved your for those of you following at home post. As is pressing people. You can justify hostility, certainly; but it's at least worth trying honest and cooperative as an approach first. It didn't start out that way, not as I read it anyway. When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms, what's your reaction: My reaction is that the author is entitled to make his work products available under any license he chooses. That isn't what's going on here, though. As far as I can tell, Erast is completely disregarding the legitimate rights of the copyright holders of the software he's shipping with his system. That isn't some code that's not available under the GPL, that's theft. And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big difference. Erast hasn't done *anything* to address or even acknowledge the CDDL/GPL compatibility issue. His system as currently implemented clearly depends on linking CDDL works with GPL works. The authors of the software he's distributing with his system haven't given him permission to do that. Quite simple, actually. To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting Debian's interests. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Dear GNU/Solaris Team!
I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website
and found a dpkg binary on it.
Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite
it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Therefore I request you kindly to make
the sources available to me. This includes 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.[3]
Since dpkg is distributed with a complete operating system, I have to assume
that other components on the CD are Free Software too. Therefore I again
request you kindly to make the sources to the used libraries[4] available to
me.
Regards, David Schmitt
[1] http://www.gnusolaris.org/elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz,
md5sum:17b70141a1c4a3d877af5271b1caf920
[2] See /usr/share/doc/dpkg/copyright on said ISO Image
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
[4] Library Packages
libintl.so.3gettext/sunwclsr
libiconv.so.2 libiconv
libc.so.1 sunwcls{,r}
libz.so zlibg1
libbz2.so.1.0 libbz2-1.0
libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
John Hasler wrote: David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? It's a bug, bad link on a generated page. Here's the correct link: http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/unstable/main/source/base/ We'll look more into this. Thanks for the notice! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Monday 07 November 2005 21:29, John Hasler wrote: David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? On http://www.edv-bus.at/david/gnusolaris/download_page.ps you can see the Page where I downloaded it. As far as I can see, there is neither a link to the source nor a written offer. Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? On http://www.edv-bus.at/david/gnusolaris/copyrights/ you can find the /usr/share/doc/*/copyright files as I found them on the ISO image. A simple check[1] in this directory indicates 265 packages claiming GPL inheritance. Amongst them apt, base-files, base-passwd, debianutils, defoma, dselect, python-apt and synaptic, which seem to be of particular interest to the Debian community. Additionally I have uploaded the /var/lib/dpkg/status from the ISO image to document the declared relationships between the packages. This can also be found in the http://www.edv-bus.at/david/gnusolaris/ directory. Regards, David Schmitt [1] rgrep -l GPL * | wc -l -- - 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris is a complete open source project and going to be developed by the community. Any source code changes will be released back to the community as per GPL/CDDL. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris is a complete open source project and going to be developed by the community. Any source code changes will be released back to the community as per GPL/CDDL. What is this will be? You are distributing binaries now; you must therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible with the GPL. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? you can check, than re-check again and again, Nexenta OS GNU/OpenSolaris is a complete open source project and going to be developed by the community. Any source code changes will be released back to the community as per GPL/CDDL. What is this will be? You are distributing binaries now; you must therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible with the GPL. You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the source directly from SVN. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is this will be? You are distributing binaries now; you must therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible with the GPL. You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the source directly from SVN. Is it necessary to obtain an account to get the binaries? The source for the complete binary must be available. Please see the original request, which you have not honored. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is this will be? You are distributing binaries now; you must therefore distribute the complete source now, under terms compatible with the GPL. You are welcome to obtain account at the web portal and check out the source directly from SVN. Is it necessary to obtain an account to get the binaries? The source for the complete binary must be available. Please see the original request, which you have not honored. actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 I hope I honored your orignal request now. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 I hope I honored your orignal request now. :-) It was not my request. Where is the C library, and is it being distributed under terms compatible with the GPL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Dear Alex! On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote: John Hasler wrote: David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? It's a bug, bad link on a generated page. Here's the correct link: http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/unstable/main/source/base/ We'll look more into this. Thanks for the notice! Thank you for your fast response! I took a look at the URL you provided and still have the following problems: * I found the files dpkg_1.13.10-0gnusol2.dsc and dpkg_1.13.10-0gnusol2.tar.gz which declare a Build-Dependency on libncurses5-dev | libncurses-dev. Neither of which can be satisfied using your Sources file from http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/unstable/main/source/Sources * Since this is based on Debian, I expected to find a build-essential package detailling further build requirements. I was not able to find such. Please consider adding such a package as a service to your users as well as documentation for your further obligations under the GPL Section 2. * Further I downloaded some of the sunw* source packages which all seem to be empty except for some boilerplate code under the respective debian/ directories. Thus I kindly request you to supply the sources for the full development environment (including headers, scripts, kernel, compiler and libraries) since most of these seem to accompany dpkg on the distributed ISO. * While browsing through your I couldn't find source for your version (0.6.40.1-1.1) of apt nor your version of debhelper (4.9.3elatte), since both are GPL and the latter is even a build-dependency for some of the sunw* packages I kindly request that you fullfill your obligation under the GPL that you provide the sources for these packages too. Regards, David Schmitt -- - 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
David, this is the place were source code lives: http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu or http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast Dear Alex! On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote: John Hasler wrote: David Schmitt writes: I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your website and found a dpkg binary on it. Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this binary, despite it being obviously under the GPL[2]. Was the requisite written offer included? Would you be willing to check the CD for other GPL software and notify the authors if you find any? It's a bug, bad link on a generated page. Here's the correct link: http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/unstable/main/source/base/ We'll look more into this. Thanks for the notice! Thank you for your fast response! I took a look at the URL you provided and still have the following problems: * I found the files dpkg_1.13.10-0gnusol2.dsc and dpkg_1.13.10-0gnusol2.tar.gz which declare a Build-Dependency on libncurses5-dev | libncurses-dev. Neither of which can be satisfied using your Sources file from http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/unstable/main/source/Sources * Since this is based on Debian, I expected to find a build-essential package detailling further build requirements. I was not able to find such. Please consider adding such a package as a service to your users as well as documentation for your further obligations under the GPL Section 2. * Further I downloaded some of the sunw* source packages which all seem to be empty except for some boilerplate code under the respective debian/ directories. Thus I kindly request you to supply the sources for the full development environment (including headers, scripts, kernel, compiler and libraries) since most of these seem to accompany dpkg on the distributed ISO. * While browsing through your I couldn't find source for your version (0.6.40.1-1.1) of apt nor your version of debhelper (4.9.3elatte), since both are GPL and the latter is even a build-dependency for some of the sunw* packages I kindly request that you fullfill your obligation under the GPL that you provide the sources for these packages too. Regards, David Schmitt -- - 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast, Unless you provide a written offer, good for three years, to supply the source on request, you *must* provide the source code for a binary alongside the binary. That means that the source code for a specific version of the binary must be downloadable before you can provide that binary. Providing binaries without the appropriate source code (as required under 3(a) of the GPL) or a written offer for the same (GPL 3(b)) is a violation of the license, and thus infringes the copyright of the authors. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you do not see something specific, or newer versions, like(you can find debarchiver-0.3 but we have debarchiver-0.4 packaged), that means it is not committed yet and we are testing it right now and will be committed shortly. Erast, Unless you provide a written offer, good for three years, to supply the source on request, you *must* provide the source code for a binary alongside the binary. That means that the source code for a specific version of the binary must be downloadable before you can provide that binary. Providing binaries without the appropriate source code (as required under 3(a) of the GPL) or a written offer for the same (GPL 3(b)) is a violation of the license, and thus infringes the copyright of the authors. OK. point taken. This will be fixed soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which bits is planned to be release by the end of this week. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: actually, I just checked. anonymous access is granted. Just browse it at http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1 Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. That is not acceptible. You must immediately take down the binaries if you cannot NOW provide the source. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. That is not acceptible. If you are not providing the source now, then you must immediately remove the binaries. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK. point taken. This will be fixed soon. Hopefully in Alpha 1, which bits is planned to be release by the end of this week. That is not acceptible. You must fix it now, not soon. You can fix it by, for example, removing the binaries you are distributing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Dear Erast! On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote: Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. The GPL specifically requests that offers for download are made offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place. While I appreciate the fine source control browser, I really cannot download the whole sources over this interface. Notwithstanding the technical difficulties, this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. Further I also couldn't find the Sources for the sunw* packages needed to build the rest of the build requirements. 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Dear Erast! On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote: Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. The GPL specifically requests that offers for download are made offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place. While I appreciate the fine source control browser, I really cannot download the whole sources over this interface. Notwithstanding the technical difficulties www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Are you developer and wanna help us? Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Hi! * Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051108 01:48]: (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Are you developer and wanna help us? Uhm... I don't understand... if it is only available for developer, why are they on a disc image, publicaly available for everyone? And how I should I decide if I want to be a developer and help you, if can't take a look at it, and see if I can be of helpt? Just curious... Yours sincerely, Alexander -- http://learn.to/quote/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: Dear Erast! On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote: Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. The GPL specifically requests that offers for download are made offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place. While I appreciate the fine source control browser, I really cannot download the whole sources over this interface. Notwithstanding the technical difficulties www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. [...] *equivalent* access [...] If binaries are distributed in an ISO image, you should distribute the sources in an ISO image too. Erast Thadeu Cascardo. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: Dear Erast! On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote: Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL sections one and two. http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/browser/gnusolaris1/gnu its in progress process, we are moving gnusolaris1/gnu code to .. you have to look at both directories at this point. Sorry for inconvenience. Also some stuff not committed yet, becase we are testing them. In 2-3 months we are hoping to sort out all these starting issues with code browsing, scripts availability, etc. The GPL specifically requests that offers for download are made offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place. While I appreciate the fine source control browser, I really cannot download the whole sources over this interface. Notwithstanding the technical difficulties www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. [...] *equivalent* access [...] If binaries are distributed in an ISO image, you should distribute the sources in an ISO image too. OK. Thanks. Working on it right now. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Sorry, but that doesn't mean it's your choice to not distribute the source which matches the binaries. If you haven't tested it enough to be willing to release the GPL source, then you shouldn't be releasing binaries either. -- 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: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Sorry, but that doesn't mean it's your choice to not distribute the source which matches the binaries. If you haven't tested it enough to be willing to release the GPL source, then you shouldn't be releasing binaries either. I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I understand your concern. We will release ISO image with CDDL/GPL sources very soon. Majority of them already available at /apt. The rest is comming. Once again, delete the binaries *now*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 07:35:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:48:52PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt (0.6.40.1-1.1) nor your patched debhelper (4.9.3elatte) as requested in my other mail. I'm personally working on it, and I will not commit those changes until they will be tested. Rememer, these all binaries are under development, and available for developers only. Sorry, but that doesn't mean it's your choice to not distribute the source which matches the binaries. If you haven't tested it enough to be willing to release the GPL source, then you shouldn't be releasing binaries either. WhatSteveSaid++. Also, it's even *more* important to release source whenever you're producing binaries for developer testing. How are developers supposed to help test and debug the program if they can't use the source to identify the problems and fix them? - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
