[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[USM Bish]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:58PM +0530, Manoj Joseph wrote:
>
> > Distros is a different  issue altogether. These are merely
> > compilations of  user space  software on  distro preferred
> > init systems and layout.
>
> Distros, IMHO,  do a lot more that compile  a few user space
> software for you.

The other things are also annotated above, but in brief.

> 
> Maybe I am  missing the context. But  without standards, you
> would find it  difficult to compile the sources  to run from
> anywhere.
>

The standards are in context  of the push by openstandards.org
kind of  thing, where standardisation  is sought at  the upper
most layers of application locations. At core level things are
quite  standardised as  it  is with  minor variations  between
various implimentations  of *nix. As regards  compilations, if
one knows how to set up ld.so.conf (or the library switches of
the compiler  directly) anything  will compile  from anywhere.
That is actually how all  systems are built from the toolchain
before the chrooted first boot into the nascent system.

> I don't think  this is a non  issue at all. And  I don't see
> sysadmins hand  compiling everything  from the  scratch, and
> doing that everytime there is a patch released...

This  is   correct.  For   production  systems   stability  is
paramount. Very few  do a binary upgrade  too with frequencies
seen  with  desktops.  Changes  are  made  very  slowly  where
necessary (unless it is a security issue) mandated by changing
requirements, and certainly not for  every patch. Till about 2
months back  sourceforge.net was on kernel  2.4.xx, mine still
is :-(  An update is coming  though ... but slowly, with every
component thoroughly tried and tested ...

Bish

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[USM Bish]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:38:12PM +0500, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> > I am not very clear on these Standards compliance issues. 
> > [some snipped]
> 
>The interfaces  for the utilities -  behavioral semantics
>and  syntax of  the command  line options  etc. are  also
>governed by  standards like  SVID and SUSv3.  Internal to
>SUN there are testsuites  that verify compliance to these
>standards and any non-compliance is a bug.

Thanks for this info, Moinak. I  was not aware of the internal
Sun compliance issues. SVID compatibility, I am certain is not
built into GNU by design,  but, SUS (Single user Specs) surely
is. Since this is of importance to Solaris based things, it is
only appropriate that  requisite tools be built  with all such
considerations to replace proprietory binaries.

> 
> > If you  use gcc,  and specially glibc,  100% compatibility
> > with pure  Solarisbinaries may  stand broken,  whether you
> > like it  or not. The compatbility  is to be built  at more
> > core levels than userland utils and apps ...
> 
>That  is upto  the user  if he  wants to  build a  custom
>system he very well can  using OpenSolaris. Just get hold
>of  whatever  sources  and  then  configure,  make,  make
>install.

Yup,  this  is well  understandable.  Just  brought out  above
point since  compiling under  gcc and the  solaris development
platforms are both acceptable now.  

> 
>Exactly.  No issues  if are  the tech-savvy  compile from
>source guy. I might just  as well start with building the
>kernel and everything above it.

The kernel comes quite late ... its binutils first ;-)

> 
>And even  personally most  of the time  I find  it really
>boring having to download and  build stuff. I'd just grab
>a  latest  binary  package  and install  it.  But  binary
>package on Linux is distro specific.

Yes, this is true, mainly for the rpm based distros. But most 
major distros have some version of  commonly used packages in 
their stable.

> 
>The trouble  here is  that an average  SuSE user  will be
>completely  lost  if he  is  suddenly  confronted with  a
>Mandrake  system. We  do  not want  to  repeat this  with
>OpenSolaris.

This  will never  happen to  OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris  is open
sourced to the  community but core control  still remains with
Sun.  The core  sections would  always stay  that way,  but at
'userland' levels things may digress.

> 
>Why do you think standardisation will restrict freedom ? 

What I am  talking about is at the 'user  level', not the core
level of system  apps. To take a case in  point the developers
of  qt library  recommend qt  to be  installed under  /opt and
ld.so.conf duly modified. Check  out different distros and see
where they  lie. Why  do you  want to  take away  this freedom
?  The  configure  script  for most  apps  place  binaries  in
/usr/local but then different distros place these things under
/usr and othe places. All distros place mail spools under /var
but  then  people  handling mail  handle  things  differently,
varying upon load. Look at the variations in placement of docs
for  user apps.  If not  for these  variations, all  'distros'
would be the same ... a drab drab world, with the charm of the
'Start' button on Windows ;-) Though some like it that way!


> 
>  BTW porting glibc to OpenSolaris is a huge project I guess.

Don't try it ;-) Unless juggling with fire is a hobby ...

> 
>Online manpages are available at  http://docs.sun.com
> 

Will go there. Thanks for the lead.

Bish

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Manoj Joseph]

USM Bish wrote:
> Distros is NOT Linux. I am a Linux user for a decade, and as of now,
> I am on LFS with everything compiled from scratch. Freedom from
> all distros, and everything runs, no conflicts ...
...
> Distros is a different issue altogether. These are  merely  compilations of
> user space software on distro preferred init systems and layout.
Distros, IMHO, do a lot more that compile a few user space software for you.

I would prefer not to have to compile every tool/thing that I want to 
use. IMHO, there are better ways to spend my time. :)

Just my take. I am sure each one has his/her own preference.

> This is a non-issue for most people, except for folk who want to market
> binary-only software, and want them to run everywhere. I strongly feel
> that there is  NO need for 'standardisation' out here, which essentially 
> caters
> for closed-source interests.  Sources, if distributed can be compiled to
> run from anywhere.
Maybe I am missing the context. But without standards, you would find it 
difficult to compile the sources to run from anywhere.

I don't think this is a non issue at all. And I don't see sysadmins hand 
compiling everything from the scratch, and doing that everytime there is 
a patch released...

Regards,
Manoj

--
Disclaimer: What is stated is my personal opinion. :)

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Moinak Ghosh]

- Original Message -
From: USM Bish 
> Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> 
> >>
> > Unfortunately GNU
> >   utilities do not always adhere to these standards and are not 
> fully 
> > compatible with their
> >   UNIX counterparts.
> >
> I am not very clear on these Standards compliance issues. AFAIK,
> these are issues to be complied by the C libraries rather than the
> individual pieces which go into the numerous core utilities of
> *nix. As regards core C libraries are concerned, the GNU has
> been quite meticulous. It follows all relevant standards (ISO C 99,
> POSIX.1c, POSIX.1j, POSIX.1d, Unix98, Single Unix Specification).
> It is also internationalized and has one of the most complete
> internationalization interfaces known.  It is definitely 100%
> compliant with POSIX and ISO C (and also supports features of
> other popular Unix variants (including BSD and System V))
> when these do not conflict with the standards stated earlier.

   The interfaces for the utilities - behavioral semantics and syntax
   of the command line options etc. are also governed by standards
   like SVID and SUSv3. Internal to SUN there are testsuites that
   verify compliance to these standards and any non-compliance
   is a bug.

> 
[...]
> > However simply
> >   replacing OpenSolaris utilities with GNU stuff will break 
> binary 
> > compatibility with Solaris.
> 
> 
> If you use gcc, and specially glibc, 100% compatibility with pure 
> Solarisbinaries may stand broken, whether you like it or not. The 
> compatbility is
> to be built at more core levels than userland utils and apps ...

   That is upto the user if he wants to build a custom system he
   very well can using OpenSolaris. Just get hold of whatever
   sources and then configure, make, make install.

   But as a distro BeleniX needs to comply to a certain character
   and since standards are already set there is no point in breaking
   them. However another item on the roadmap is the ability to set
   a certain character during install - whether OpenSolaris like or
   GNU like.

   With the Branded Zones project it will be possible to have a
   complete GNU environment running inside a Zone on a system
   having an OpenSolaris character.

   There is a distro called Nexenta that already implements a
   complete Debian system. It is basically Debian userland with
   apt and friends and Debian daemons running on top of the
   OpenSolaris kernel and OpenSolaris libc.

> 
> >
[...]
> > distros.  The Linux Standard
> >   Base is a recent effort in the right direction but few distros 
> > comply to it as yet.
> >
> Distros is NOT Linux. I am a Linux user for a decade, and as of now,
> I am on LFS with everything compiled from scratch. Freedom from
> all distros, and everything runs, no conflicts ...
> 
> Distros is a different issue altogether. These are  merely  
> compilations of
> user space software on distro preferred init systems and layout. 
> The issues
> at conflict here boils down to where binaries are installed, and which
> libraries are installed. This accounts for binary software 
> incompatibilitybetween distros, which is by design, not default ! 
> In any case, how
> inconvenient is this ?
> 
> This is a non-issue for most people, except for folk who want to 
> marketbinary-only software, and want them to run everywhere. I 
> strongly feel
> that there is  NO need for 'standardisation' out here, which 
> essentially 
> caters
> for closed-source interests.  Sources, if distributed can be 
> compiled to
> run from anywhere.

   Exactly. No issues if are the tech-savvy compile from source guy.
   I might just as well start with building the kernel and everything
   above it.

   But for a non-tech user perspective a distro matters. He may not
   have the time or skills to fiddle with source and compilers if all he
   wants is to have a good desktop that gets his job done. 

   And even personally most of the time I find it really boring having
   to download and build stuff. I'd just grab a latest binary package
   and install it. But binary package on Linux is distro specific.

   The trouble here is that an average SuSE user will be completely
   lost if he is suddenly confronted with a Mandrake system. We do
   not want to repeat this with OpenSolaris. 

> 
> If standardisation at user level is enforced, the essense of 
> freedom would
> be lost. "Your box, your rules". Does it really matter if firefox 
> or KDE
> runs from /opt or /usr ? Nothing breaks really at these levels. 
> Proponentsof this uniformity is somewhat in line with the Henry 
> Ford school of 
> thought:
> "You can paint it (Ford car) any colour you like, as long as it is 
> black!"
> The issues are much lower down. Not at the level of user space.

   Why do you think standardisation will restrict freedom ? Ultimately
   you are free to do anything with the distro. Just get hold of the
   sources build and customise in whatever way you want it to be.
   No one is preventing customizatio

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[USM Bish]

Moinak Ghosh wrote:

>>
>> Why not rm -rf xenix_od ? The GNU od is pretty good.
>
>   It is easy to replace OpenSolaris userland utilities with GNU 
> coreutils/binutils however
>   we need to consider the implications. One of the driving principiles 
> of Solaris and now
>   OpenSolaris has been strict compliance to standards like, SVR4, SVID 
> (System V
>   Interface Definition), POSIX, SUSv3 (Single Unix Specification). 
> Unfortunately GNU
>   utilities do not always adhere to these standards and are not fully 
> compatible with their
>   UNIX counterparts.
>
I am not very clear on these Standards compliance issues. AFAIK,
these are issues to be complied by the C libraries rather than the
individual pieces which go into the numerous core utilities of
*nix. As regards core C libraries are concerned, the GNU has
been quite meticulous. It follows all relevant standards (ISO C 99,
POSIX.1c, POSIX.1j, POSIX.1d, Unix98, Single Unix Specification).
It is also internationalized and has one of the most complete
internationalization interfaces known.  It is definitely 100%
compliant with POSIX and ISO C (and also supports features of
other popular Unix variants (including BSD and System V))
when these do not conflict with the standards stated earlier.

>   One of the aims of BeleniX is to retain as much compatibility with 
> Solaris as possible
>   while still coming up with new innovations. This is quite possible. 
> However simply
>   replacing OpenSolaris utilities with GNU stuff will break binary 
> compatibility with Solaris.


If you use gcc, and specially glibc, 100% compatibility with pure Solaris
binaries may stand broken, whether you like it or not. The compatbility is
to be built at more core levels than userland utils and apps ...

>
>   There was a long discussion on the OpenSolaris discussion list about 
> the various distros
>   and the need to have binary compatibility between them. When Linux 
> started evolving
>   such standards did not exist for Linux and the existing UNIX 
> standards were not fully
>   followed which led to the proliferation of incompatible Linux 
> distros.  The Linux Standard
>   Base is a recent effort in the right direction but few distros 
> comply to it as yet.
>
Distros is NOT Linux. I am a Linux user for a decade, and as of now,
I am on LFS with everything compiled from scratch. Freedom from
all distros, and everything runs, no conflicts ...

Distros is a different issue altogether. These are  merely  compilations of
user space software on distro preferred init systems and layout. The issues
at conflict here boils down to where binaries are installed, and which
libraries are installed. This accounts for binary software incompatibility
between distros, which is by design, not default ! In any case, how
inconvenient is this ?

This is a non-issue for most people, except for folk who want to market
binary-only software, and want them to run everywhere. I strongly feel
that there is  NO need for 'standardisation' out here, which essentially 
caters
for closed-source interests.  Sources, if distributed can be compiled to
run from anywhere.

If standardisation at user level is enforced, the essense of freedom would
be lost. "Your box, your rules". Does it really matter if firefox or KDE
runs from /opt or /usr ? Nothing breaks really at these levels. Proponents
of this uniformity is somewhat in line with the Henry Ford school of 
thought:
 "You can paint it (Ford car) any colour you like, as long as it is black!"

The issues are much lower down. Not at the level of user space.

>   Since OpenSolaris already has a well defined Filesystem Hierarchy 
> and well defined
>   Interface Specifications lets not break things. It is entirely 
> acceptable to enhance utilities
>   with non-standard extensions - Solaris does so and hey it is your 
> value proposition that
>   sets you apart. But breaking compliance with the base standard is 
> not the right direction
>   to go.

I suppose for Solaris, which has its own established practices,
there is a need  for the system to be preserved. But these in no
way would this be affected by core utils which populate /bin or
/sbin. FSH and IS is a much later step after sorting out  the levels
of fundamental compatibility issues of  'open, malloc, printf, exit'
and a host of other things which POSIX and ISO address ...
it is not switches or extensions to utilities which are hurdles.
Extras can always be trimmed (if felt redundant or non-confomant).

>
>   Having said all this I really like the enhancements in GNU 
> utilities, the long options and the
>   extensive built-in help. For many cases the manpage is not required 
> at all. So that is where
>   the OpenSolaris utilites can be enhanced.
>
>   And for the closed source stuff they are few and most can be easily 
> implemented while
>   adhering to the specifications in the manpage. These are:
>
>   kill, alias, bg, cd, od, pax, read, sed, tail, test, type, ulimit, 
> wait, tr, unalias,

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Eric Boutilier]

USM Bish wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:38:12PM +0500, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
>  
>
>
>>   The trouble  here is  that an average  SuSE user  will be
>>   completely  lost  if he  is  suddenly  confronted with  a
>>   Mandrake  system. We  do  not want  to  repeat this  with
>>   OpenSolaris.
>>
>>
>
>This  will never  happen to  OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris  is open
>sourced to the  community but core control  still remains with
>Sun.  The core  sections would  always stay  that way...
>  
>


Actually core control of Nevada, Sun's OpenSolaris-based Solaris 
product, will remain with Sun, but control (governance, development 
process, etc.) of OpenSolaris will be completely open.

Eric

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Moinak Ghosh]

One point to note ...

>>Some of it is actually a  bit silly. Things like "od" (Octal
>>Dump)  are closed  source because  they contain  source code
>>derived from Microsoft's Xenix! Now  how much effort does it
>>take to  rewrite od  ? Probably the  community can  help out
>>with this.
>>
>>
>
>Why not rm -rf xenix_od ? The GNU od is pretty good. This used
>to  be a  portion of  textutils before.  Presently, textutils,
>fileutils and  shellutils have  been clubbed together  under a
>single package 'coreutils'. It may not be 'od' per se which is
>the  issue, but  the  other  stuff of  coreutils  are used  by
>virtually every script. Just accepting GNU coreutils would get
>rid of any xenix related problems for a lot of crucial stuff.
>  
>
   It is easy to replace OpenSolaris userland utilities with GNU 
coreutils/binutils however
   we need to consider the implications. One of the driving principiles 
of Solaris and now
   OpenSolaris has been strict compliance to standards like, SVR4, SVID 
(System V
   Interface Definition), POSIX, SUSv3 (Single Unix Specification). 
Unfortunately GNU
   utilities do not always adhere to these standards and are not fully 
compatible with their
   UNIX counterparts.

   One of the aims of BeleniX is to retain as much compatibility with 
Solaris as possible
   while still coming up with new innovations. This is quite possible. 
However simply
   replacing OpenSolaris utilities with GNU stuff will break binary 
compatibility with Solaris.

   There was a long discussion on the OpenSolaris discussion list about 
the various distros
   and the need to have binary compatibility between them. When Linux 
started evolving
   such standards did not exist for Linux and the existing UNIX 
standards were not fully
   followed which led to the proliferation of incompatible Linux 
distros.  The Linux Standard
   Base is a recent effort in the right direction but few distros comply 
to it as yet.

   Since OpenSolaris already has a well defined Filesystem Hierarchy and 
well defined
   Interface Specifications lets not break things. It is entirely 
acceptable to enhance utilities
   with non-standard extensions - Solaris does so and hey it is your 
value proposition that
   sets you apart. But breaking compliance with the base standard is not 
the right direction
   to go.

   Having said all this I really like the enhancements in GNU utilities, 
the long options and the
   extensive built-in help. For many cases the manpage is not required 
at all. So that is where
   the OpenSolaris utilites can be enhanced.

   And for the closed source stuff they are few and most can be easily 
implemented while
   adhering to the specifications in the manpage. These are:

   kill, alias, bg, cd, od, pax, read, sed, tail, test, type, ulimit, 
wait, tr, unalias, umask, printf,
   jobs

Regards,
Moinak.

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Eric Boutilier]

USM Bish wrote:

> If standardisation at user level is enforced, the essense of freedom 
> would be lost...
>

But this is just the development of one particular distro being done 
according to the policies of its developers. Nobody's being forced to do 
anything here, moreover nobody is suppressing the ultimate freedom -- 
the freedom to fork.

Eric

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Sriram Popuri]

>
> Why not maintain a page that mentions all those components that come
> under the OpenSolaris Binary License. This will help the community to
> develop their opensource counterparts.


Wonderful. Also we can prepare a list of projects for OpenSolaris.

-Sriram

Regards,
> Libin Varghese.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Libin Varghese]

Moinak Ghosh wrote:

> bish at touchtelindia.net wrote:
>
>> Which  all components  of Navada or  Belenix come under the   
>> OpenSolaris 'binary' licence.
>
>   SUN does not own full rights to some of the code in Solaris and thus 
> cannot open-source
>   it. Obviously replacement code needs to be written for these stuff 
> so that those can be
>   open-sourced. But that is the long-term work. A few of these are 
> required components.
>   So in the meantime to allow OpenSolaris distros to be able to build 
> a bootable environment,
>   these restricted components are distributed as binary-only 
> components. These are only a
>   few eg - Math library, a couple of other libs, a few commands, a few 
> kernel modules.
>   You can look at the "O/N Binary-Only Components, English" at
>   http://www.genunix.org/mirror/index.html
>
>   Some of  it is actually a bit silly. Things like "od" (Octal Dump) 
> are closed source because
>   they contain source code derived from Microsoft's Xenix! Now how 
> much effort does it take
>   to rewrite od ?  Probably the community can help out with this. 

Why not maintain a page that mentions all those components that come 
under the OpenSolaris Binary License. This will help the community to 
develop their opensource counterparts.

Regards,
Libin Varghese.



***
Experts arose from their own urgent need to exist. - Murphy's laws
***

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Moinak Ghosh]

> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:02:41AM +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> > 
> > This  allowance is  necessary  because Solaris  has a  whole
> > bunch  of third-party  software that  uses Solaris  internal
> > APIs  and  code.  These  will become  instantly  illegal  if
> > OpenSolaris were to use GPL.
> 
> Thanks for  the clarification  Moinak. This freedom  is needed
> for other projects based on OpenSolaris to take off ..
> 
> Hope you guys are  following gnusolaris. This projecte started
> about six months ago. Objective being to have the best of both
> worlds. The  abundance of GNU  software running on top  of the
> stability of the OpenSolaris kernel.
> 
> http://gnusolaris.org

   Yes we are very much following this project with interest. It is
   basically debian on top of OpenSolaris kernel.  BTW once
   the Branded Zones project is complete we can have best of
   all worlds on a single instance of Solaris.

   That is we can have a plain OpenSolaris distro running a GNU
   Solaris version in one or more zones.

Regards,
Moinak.

> 
> The  last month  their alpha  was released  under the  name of
> Nexenta OS, which to me appears a fork of Debian riding on top
> of OpenSolaris. Need to create some space in my box to try out
> such things.  From what  I read,  they have  a huge  amount of
> Debian  stuff  ported  already  for the  alpha  release.  With
> apt-get already functional along  with associated utils (dpkg,
> dselect etc)  things seem  to be progressing  at a  good pace.
> Between last evening and today, 16 packages have been added to
> the list !
> 
> >
> > SUN  does  not   own  full  rights  to  some   of  the  code
> > in  Solaris  and  thus   cannot  open-source  it.  Obviously
> > replacement  code  needs  to  be  written  for  these  stuff
> > so  that  those  can  be   open-sourced.  But  that  is  the
> > long-term  work. A  few  of these  are required  components.
> > So  in  the meantime  to  allow  OpenSolaris distros  to  be
> > able  to  build  a bootable  environment,  these  restricted
> > components are distributed  as binary-only components. These
> > are  only  a few  eg  -  Math  library,  a couple  of  other
> > libs,  a  few  commands,  a  few  kernel  modules.  You  can
> > look  at  the  "O/N   Binary-Only  Components,  English"  at
> > http://www.genunix.org/mirror/index.html
> >
> 
> Yup, this makes things clear. Thanks.
> 
> > Some of it is actually a  bit silly. Things like "od" (Octal
> > Dump)  are closed  source because  they contain  source code
> > derived from Microsoft's Xenix! Now  how much effort does it
> > take to  rewrite od  ? Probably the  community can  help out
> > with this.
> 
> Why not rm -rf xenix_od ? The GNU od is pretty good. This used
> to  be a  portion of  textutils before.  Presently, textutils,
> fileutils and  shellutils have  been clubbed together  under a
> single package 'coreutils'. It may not be 'od' per se which is
> the  issue, but  the  other  stuff of  coreutils  are used  by
> virtually every script. Just accepting GNU coreutils would get
> rid of any xenix related problems for a lot of crucial stuff.
> 
> > > Are  crucial things  like kernel,  essential C  libs, ZFS,
> > > dtrace and other 'goodies' affected ?
> > >
> > Nope. The kernel, libc, and all the Solaris 10 new features,
> > are open-source. I guess 90% of the core Solaris source-base
> > in open-source and more are being added.
> 
> This sure is encouraging to hear ...
> 
> > BTW  I  am  not  using the  closed-source  math  library  in
> > BeleniX. I  am using  FreeBSD's math  library, which  I have
> > modified and  enhanced. FreeBSD's  Math library was  in fact
> > donated by SUN back in 1993!
> 
> Thanks for this  info ... I was under the  impression that the
> core libs used in the *BSD collection was an original BSD port
> ... never  knew the  Solaris connection !  Keep on  feeding us
> this sort of stuff, would clear a lot of misconceptions ...
> 
> And keep up the good work, all you loonies on belenix.
> 
> Bish
> 
> ___
> ug-bosug mailing list
> List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org
> List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org
> List-Archives: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug
> 

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[USM Bish]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:02:41AM +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> 
> This  allowance is  necessary  because Solaris  has a  whole
> bunch  of third-party  software that  uses Solaris  internal
> APIs  and  code.  These  will become  instantly  illegal  if
> OpenSolaris were to use GPL.

Thanks for  the clarification  Moinak. This freedom  is needed
for other projects based on OpenSolaris to take off ..

Hope you guys are  following gnusolaris. This projecte started
about six months ago. Objective being to have the best of both
worlds. The  abundance of GNU  software running on top  of the
stability of the OpenSolaris kernel.

http://gnusolaris.org

The  last month  their alpha  was released  under the  name of
Nexenta OS, which to me appears a fork of Debian riding on top
of OpenSolaris. Need to create some space in my box to try out
such things.  From what  I read,  they have  a huge  amount of
Debian  stuff  ported  already  for the  alpha  release.  With
apt-get already functional along  with associated utils (dpkg,
dselect etc)  things seem  to be progressing  at a  good pace.
Between last evening and today, 16 packages have been added to
the list !

>
> SUN  does  not   own  full  rights  to  some   of  the  code
> in  Solaris  and  thus   cannot  open-source  it.  Obviously
> replacement  code  needs  to  be  written  for  these  stuff
> so  that  those  can  be   open-sourced.  But  that  is  the
> long-term  work. A  few  of these  are required  components.
> So  in  the meantime  to  allow  OpenSolaris distros  to  be
> able  to  build  a bootable  environment,  these  restricted
> components are distributed  as binary-only components. These
> are  only  a few  eg  -  Math  library,  a couple  of  other
> libs,  a  few  commands,  a  few  kernel  modules.  You  can
> look  at  the  "O/N   Binary-Only  Components,  English"  at
> http://www.genunix.org/mirror/index.html
>

Yup, this makes things clear. Thanks.

> Some of it is actually a  bit silly. Things like "od" (Octal
> Dump)  are closed  source because  they contain  source code
> derived from Microsoft's Xenix! Now  how much effort does it
> take to  rewrite od  ? Probably the  community can  help out
> with this.

Why not rm -rf xenix_od ? The GNU od is pretty good. This used
to  be a  portion of  textutils before.  Presently, textutils,
fileutils and  shellutils have  been clubbed together  under a
single package 'coreutils'. It may not be 'od' per se which is
the  issue, but  the  other  stuff of  coreutils  are used  by
virtually every script. Just accepting GNU coreutils would get
rid of any xenix related problems for a lot of crucial stuff.

> > Are  crucial things  like kernel,  essential C  libs, ZFS,
> > dtrace and other 'goodies' affected ?
> >
> Nope. The kernel, libc, and all the Solaris 10 new features,
> are open-source. I guess 90% of the core Solaris source-base
> in open-source and more are being added.

This sure is encouraging to hear ...

> BTW  I  am  not  using the  closed-source  math  library  in
> BeleniX. I  am using  FreeBSD's math  library, which  I have
> modified and  enhanced. FreeBSD's  Math library was  in fact
> donated by SUN back in 1993!

Thanks for this  info ... I was under the  impression that the
core libs used in the *BSD collection was an original BSD port
... never  knew the  Solaris connection !  Keep on  feeding us
this sort of stuff, would clear a lot of misconceptions ...

And keep up the good work, all you loonies on belenix.

Bish

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[Moinak Ghosh]

bish at touchtelindia.net wrote:

>Having played with  Belenix for 4-5 days, I decided  to have a
>look at the internals of the CD. The first stop  was obviously 
>licencing.
>
>Of  the  dozen  plus  licences   placed  in  the  Belenix  CD,
>the  two  of importance  are  the  two solaris  licences,  the
>OPENSOLARIS.LICENCE and the OPENSOLARIS.BINARY.LICENCE.
>
>The OPENSOLARIS.LICENCE has no significant issues. This is the
>well  published Common  Development  and Distribution  License
>(CDDL) available  all over on  the net.  This IS quite  cool !
>Perhaps, more lax than even GPL. Hoping that my interpretation
>is correct !
>  
>
   Yes. CDDL allows you to combine CDDL-ed files with files having 
another license,
   even proprietary and create derivative binaries providing that the 
contents of the
   CDDL-ed files have not been reused in any of the non-CDDL files - 
CDDL is a file
   based license as opposed to GPL which is a project-based license.

   This allowance is necessary because Solaris has a whole bunch of 
third-party software
   that uses Solaris internal APIs and code. These will become instantly 
illegal if OpenSolaris
   were to use GPL.

>OTOH, the  binary licence  is somewhat restrictive  (e.g. "You
>may not rent, lease, lend or encumber Software" and some other
>multi-line sentences,  implicating 'conditions apply'  which I
>could not understand clearly). While I do some more 'googling'
>and 'sunning' on these issues, it would be nice if anybody can
>throw some light on the following:
>
>a) Which  all components  of Navada or  Belenix come under the 
>   OpenSolaris 'binary' licence.
>  
>
   SUN does not own full rights to some of the code in Solaris and thus 
cannot open-source
   it. Obviously replacement code needs to be written for these stuff so 
that those can be
   open-sourced. But that is the long-term work. A few of these are 
required components.
   So in the meantime to allow OpenSolaris distros to be able to build a 
bootable environment,
   these restricted components are distributed as binary-only 
components. These are only a
   few eg - Math library, a couple of other libs, a few commands, a few 
kernel modules.
   You can look at the "O/N Binary-Only Components, English" at
   http://www.genunix.org/mirror/index.html

   Some of  it is actually a bit silly. Things like "od" (Octal Dump) 
are closed source because
   they contain source code derived from Microsoft's Xenix! Now how much 
effort does it take
   to rewrite od ?  Probably the community can help out with this.

>b) Are  crucial  things like  kernel,  essential C libs,  ZFS, 
>   dtrace and other 'goodies' affected ?
>  
>
   Nope. The kernel, libc, and all the Solaris 10 new features, are 
open-source. I guess 90% of
   the core Solaris source-base in open-source and more are being added.

>c) What are  the  exact  implications of  these binary licence 
>   components within OpenSolaris/ Belinix etc ?
>  
>
   The binary components can only be used for building OpenSolaris 
distros. So I can legally
   use them in BeleniX.

   BTW I am not using the closed-source math library in BeleniX. I am 
using FreeBSD's math library,
   which I have modified and enhanced. FreeBSD's Math library was in 
fact donated by SUN back
   in 1993!

Regards,
Moinak.

>Sorry for poing such naive questions,  but genuinely, I am  a 
>0-ist on OpenSolaris and ALL such legal issues ... 
>
>Bish
>
>___
>ug-bosug mailing list
>List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org
>List-Help: mailto:ug-bosug-request at opensolaris.org?subject=help
>List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org
>List-Archives: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug
>  
>

[ug-bosug] OpenSolaris Binary Licence

[b...@touchtelindia.net]

Having played with  Belenix for 4-5 days, I decided  to have a
look at the internals of the CD. The first stop  was obviously 
licencing.

Of  the  dozen  plus  licences   placed  in  the  Belenix  CD,
the  two  of importance  are  the  two solaris  licences,  the
OPENSOLARIS.LICENCE and the OPENSOLARIS.BINARY.LICENCE.

The OPENSOLARIS.LICENCE has no significant issues. This is the
well  published Common  Development  and Distribution  License
(CDDL) available  all over on  the net.  This IS quite  cool !
Perhaps, more lax than even GPL. Hoping that my interpretation
is correct !

OTOH, the  binary licence  is somewhat restrictive  (e.g. "You
may not rent, lease, lend or encumber Software" and some other
multi-line sentences,  implicating 'conditions apply'  which I
could not understand clearly). While I do some more 'googling'
and 'sunning' on these issues, it would be nice if anybody can
throw some light on the following:

a) Which  all components  of Navada or  Belenix come under the 
   OpenSolaris 'binary' licence.

b) Are  crucial  things like  kernel,  essential C libs,  ZFS, 
   dtrace and other 'goodies' affected ?

c) What are  the  exact  implications of  these binary licence 
   components within OpenSolaris/ Belinix etc ?

Sorry for poing such naive questions,  but genuinely, I am  a 
0-ist on OpenSolaris and ALL such legal issues ... 

Bish