On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha <a...@nexenta.org> wrote:
> * I would like to understand further the rational behind using the > "distribution of libraries" boundary at Debian project level, rather > than at a package/binary level, which seems a more natural fit for > delineation. Simply because "accompanies" is open to interpretation. Clearly a Win32 binary downloaded from ftp.gnome.org does not accompany Microsoft Windows. It isn't quite as clear that an ELF executable in the gimp binary package on a Debian CD does not accompany the ELF executables in the libc6 package. > * If we do choose the entire project as the boundary, then in the > specific case of packages that are GPLv2 only (linking with libc), we > have been considering building these with a statically linked, license > compatible libc (one of the small implementations). I would also like > to hear your thoughts on this as a technical/legal solution. That sounds problematic to get right for every package in the archive (I'm thinking about the license compatibility nightmares caused by OpenSSL). BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris? http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/ Also, what would be the upstream of a possible Debian OpenSolaris based port? I read that Oracle is closing down OpenSolaris and moving development behind closed doors. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=1zykz2konnrdvjxfwm51fhlaux41bg9+l+...@mail.gmail.com
