On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote: > If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest > to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the > license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.
And I will unkindly *demand* that our concerns be taken quite seriously. Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am one of them). So, you'd better be prepared to convince us that shipping CDDL Kernel+libc *together* with GPL software linked to that CDDL libc is compliant, if you want to remain in good will with us. We are NOT asking for too much, and we are not engaging in any religious wars either. We are being responsible citizens. If the CDDL is compatible to the DFSG and to the GPL, so much the better IMHO, I have *nothing* against the Solaris kernel and libc, even if I do prefer the Linux kernel and glibc over them. I will welcome Debian OpenSolaris if it is possible to do so legally. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
