Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2011-05-01 Thread Florian Weimer
* Don Armstrong: > You're conflating GPLv2 with v3. They are very different with regards > to the System Library exception, as I explained in my original > message. Please consider rereading it and pointing out precisely where > I have misread the license along with supporting quotations from the

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-10-07 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Don Armstrong: > > [The system library exception is] intended for cases where you're > > running a GPLed work on a system which is GPL-incompatible. > > Not in this generality. We aren't allowed to link GPLed software to > OpenSSL, after all. Because

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-10-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Don Armstrong: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Don Armstrong: >> >> > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK >> >> I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library >> exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. > > I

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-24 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:42:07 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: [...] > The constraints for a CDDL’ed OS are the same as for a proprietary one. This looks correct to me, since I am personally convinced that CDDL'ed works fail to comply with the DFSG and are therefore non-free... My detailed analysis

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Don Armstrong: > > > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK > > I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library > exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. It's intended for cases where

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-23 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 23 septembre 2010 à 20:42 +0100, Stephen Gran a écrit : > This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said: > > * Don Armstrong: > > > > > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK > > > > I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library > > exception.

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-23 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said: > * Don Armstrong: > > > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK > > I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library > exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. Does no one else see a

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-22 Thread Florian Weimer
* Don Armstrong: > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems. The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible (although it is not

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-03 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Sep 03 14:04, Paul Wise wrote: > BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris? > > http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/ > How would the licence interactions work here, with a CDDL kernel and a GPL libc/userland? Does the fact that it's specifically the kernel satisfy the

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-03 Thread Anil Gulecha
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Anil Gulecha writes: > >> Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch >> of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork of OpenSolaris >> codebase. > > I don't understand the distinction being made there. What is d

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-03 Thread Ben Finney
Anil Gulecha writes: > Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch > of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork of OpenSolaris > codebase. I don't understand the distinction being made there. What is different between “a branch of the code” versus “a fork of the

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-02 Thread Anil Gulecha
> 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. > Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha 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 "acco

Re: CDDL/GPL and Nexenta (with CDDL libc)

2010-09-02 Thread Anil Gulecha
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Don Armstrong wrote: > In the course of Debconf10, I was asked a few questions about CDDL'ed > libc, Nexenta, GPLed works and what would be necessary to have GPLed > works which linked to a CDDLed libc so Nexenta could possibly become a > Debian port. To make sure I