|
Replies:
187
-
Last Post:
Sep 9, 2005 12:29 PM
by: Sven Luther
|
|
|
Posts:
29
From:
Cyberspace
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
|
|
GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 18, 2005 11:07 PM
|
|
Alright, I wonder about this myself as well. I read through all the threads
discussing this issue at http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=13.
I feel compelled to make a few comments and suggestions:
1. Instead of rampantly speculating about what the FSF website means when it
says the CDDL and GPL are incompatible, has anybody tried asking the FSF?
2. Many of us consider GPL/CDDL compatibility a prerequisite for the Open
Solaris project to flourish. Consider the wonderful cross-pollination between
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, and the vast repertoire of the FSF. The
compatibility between the BSD and GPL licenses permits and encourages this.
Alan Cox and others simultaneously contribute code to projects under both
licenses without worrying about the consequences.
3. The hostility toward the GPL in the threads here made me seriously consider
whether I want to continue any involvement in the Open Solaris project.
Already, the Nevada builds leverage a not insubstantial amount of GPL'd and FSF
software.
Sun should be nurturing a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with
the FSF. If they have not been doing this from the beginning, Sun should be
extending an olive branch.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
James Lick
jlick@drivel.com
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 12:17 AM
in response to: edison
|
|
Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>2. Many of us consider GPL/CDDL compatibility a prerequisite for the Open
>Solaris project to flourish. Consider the wonderful cross-pollination between
>OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, and the vast repertoire of the FSF. The
>compatibility between the BSD and GPL licenses permits and encourages this.
>Alan Cox and others simultaneously contribute code to projects under both
>licenses without worrying about the consequences.
>
>
Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has problems with a
lot of licensing systems. You can also see that there are ways to gain
compatibility, such as the dual license scheme you mentioned, or by
ensuring that the GPL code is not linked or dynamically loaded into a
program with an incompatible license. You are right though that there
hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
with the CDDL though.
--
James Lick -- 黎建溥 -- jlick at jameslick dot com -- http://jameslick.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 1:16 AM
in response to: James Lick
|
|
James Lick -- 黎建溥 wrote
>You are right though that there
>hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
>with the CDDL though.
Since CDDL is based on MPL, some of the incompatibilities are explained in Larry Rosen's book: "Open Source Licensing", Prentice Hall, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Tucker
agtucker@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 8:43 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On 8/19/05, W. Wayne Liauh <wp at hawaiilinux dot us> wrote:
> James Lick -- 黎建溥 wrote
> >You are right though that there
> >hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
> >with the CDDL though.
>
> Since CDDL is based on MPL, some of the incompatibilities are explained in Larry Rosen's book: "Open Source Licensing", Prentice Hall, 2004
Now available online:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
The "License Compatibility for Derivative Works" section of Chapter 10
is probably the most relevant..
Andy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 9:54 AM
in response to: James Lick
|
|
James Lick <jlick at drivel dot com> wrote:
> Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
>
> If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has problems with a
> lot of licensing systems. You can also see that there are ways to gain
> compatibility, such as the dual license scheme you mentioned, or by
> ensuring that the GPL code is not linked or dynamically loaded into a
> program with an incompatible license. You are right though that there
> hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
> with the CDDL though.
It is not possible at all to include GPL code into a BSD project of
any BSDl flavor. So it depends on the person who likes to take and the person
who gives.....
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Lau
stevel@sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 10:11 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James Lick <jlick at drivel dot com> wrote:
>
>
>>Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
>>
>>If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has problems with a
>>lot of licensing systems. You can also see that there are ways to gain
>>compatibility, such as the dual license scheme you mentioned, or by
>>ensuring that the GPL code is not linked or dynamically loaded into a
>>program with an incompatible license. You are right though that there
>>hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
>>with the CDDL though.
>
>
> It is not possible at all to include GPL code into a BSD project of
> any BSDl flavor. So it depends on the person who likes to take and the person
> who gives.....
>
> Jörg
>
And the person who sues... ;-)
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 10:23 AM
in response to: Stephen Lau
|
|
Stephen Lau <stevel at sun dot com> wrote:
> >>Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
> >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
> >>
> >>If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has problems with a
> >>lot of licensing systems. You can also see that there are ways to gain
> >>compatibility, such as the dual license scheme you mentioned, or by
> >>ensuring that the GPL code is not linked or dynamically loaded into a
> >>program with an incompatible license. You are right though that there
> >>hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
> >>with the CDDL though.
> >
> >
> > It is not possible at all to include GPL code into a BSD project of
> > any BSDl flavor. So it depends on the person who likes to take and the person
> > who gives.....
> >
> > Jörg
> >
>
> And the person who sues... ;-)
OK, then I should ad the note that from my understanding, BSD code cannot
even be legally included in GPL projects. The only reason why it is possible
is that it is tolerated by the copyright holders.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:31 PM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:23:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Lau <stevel at sun dot com> wrote:
>
> > >>Not all BSD style licenses are compatible with the GPL:
> > >>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD
> > >>
> > >>If you read that whole FAQ, you can see that the GPL has problems with a
> > >>lot of licensing systems. You can also see that there are ways to gain
> > >>compatibility, such as the dual license scheme you mentioned, or by
> > >>ensuring that the GPL code is not linked or dynamically loaded into a
> > >>program with an incompatible license. You are right though that there
> > >>hasn't been a comprehensive explanation of how the GPL is incompatible
> > >>with the CDDL though.
> > >
> > >
> > > It is not possible at all to include GPL code into a BSD project of
> > > any BSDl flavor. So it depends on the person who likes to take and the person
> > > who gives.....
> > >
> > > Jörg
> > >
> >
> > And the person who sues... ;-)
>
> OK, then I should ad the note that from my understanding, BSD code cannot
> even be legally included in GPL projects. The only reason why it is possible
> is that it is tolerated by the copyright holders.
Huh ? The BSD licence says take my code and make whatever you like with it, so
if you can make proprietary code out of it, you can also make GPLed code out
of it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 11:23 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
CDDL (or more specifically, a code licensed under the CDDL) can be considered as consisting of two portions: the GPL portion and the proprietary portion. If enough manpower (gender neutral) can be mustered to eliminate the need for the proprietary code, then Sun can easily re-license OpenSolaris under GPL.
But doing that would also defeat what I believe as perhaps the best advantage of CDDL, in that it allows hardware manufacturers to have their proprietary driver included in the kernel. So far, unfortunately, I am not sensing any action to educate hardware makers of this advantage.
Many embedded device makers in Taiwan (though many of their products are made in China) treat the GPL'd Linux as if they were under BSD, or at best, under CDDL (i.e, keeping at least some code proprietary). Since many of these products are sold in the US, this is a time bomb waiting to be exploded. OTOH, does anyone really believe that the terms of GPL can be enforced in China--the next biggest market for all IP products?
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 12:34 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
"W. Wayne Liauh" <wp at HawaiiLinux dot us> wrote:
> CDDL (or more specifically, a code licensed under the CDDL) can be considered as consisting of two portions: the GPL portion and the proprietary portion. If enough manpower (gender neutral) can be mustered to eliminate the need for the proprietary code, then Sun can easily re-license OpenSolaris under GPL.
Do you really believe that the CDDL includes a proprietary portion?
If so, please read the CDDL and try to understand it.
Sun cannot use the GPL for OpenSalaris because the GPL does not
allow to link OSS code with CS code.
> But doing that would also defeat what I believe as perhaps the best advantage of CDDL, in that it allows hardware manufacturers to have their proprietary driver included in the kernel. So far, unfortunately, I am not sensing any action to educate hardware makers of this advantage.
As long as there are no ports for typical embedded processors, there is
no need to advertize this feature.
> Many embedded device makers in Taiwan (though many of their products are made in China) treat the GPL'd Linux as if they were under BSD, or at best, under CDDL (i.e, keeping at least some code proprietary). Since many of these products are sold in the US, this is a time bomb waiting to be exploded. OTOH, does anyone really believe that the terms of GPL can be enforced in China--the next biggest market for all IP products?
These majority of these products are not sold mainly in China but e.g. in
Germany. It really helps to go to the court and to forbid to sell the
hardware in Germany.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 12:49 PM
in response to: joerg
|
|
Jörg (Creator of SchilliX, the first OpenSolaris-based distro outside of Sun) wrote:
<snip>
>As long as there are no ports for typical embedded processors, there is
>no need to advertize this feature.
I was talking about devices drivers for chipsets, video, sound, wireless, modems, etc., that are an integral part of any computer.
<snip>
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:34 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:23:30AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> CDDL (or more specifically, a code licensed under the CDDL) can be considered as consisting of two portions: the GPL portion and the proprietary portion. If enough manpower (gender neutral) can be mustered to eliminate the need for the proprietary code, then Sun can easily re-license OpenSolaris under GPL.
>
> But doing that would also defeat what I believe as perhaps the best advantage of CDDL, in that it allows hardware manufacturers to have their proprietary driver included in the kernel. So far, unfortunately, I am not sensing any action to educate hardware makers of this advantage.
Bah, most people keep proprietary code in linux kernel modules, and this is
mostly ok and accepted. After all the kernel-module interface provides an as
good code separation as the kenrel-userland interface does, at least if said
modules do not use GPLed callbacks in the kernel, but they usually don't need
to.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 12:20 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
Sven Luther wrote:
<Bah, most people keep proprietary code in linux kernel modules, and this is
mostly ok and accepted. After all the kernel-module interface provides an as
good code separation as the kenrel-userland interface does, at least if said
modules do not use GPLed callbacks in the kernel, but they usually don't need
to.>
The problem with using loadable modules is that, as someone in this forum has educated me, Linux kernel developers have a strong prejudice against APIs needed by proprietary loadable modules.
But you have a very valid point here. The problem is related to kernel management, and not how the kernel is licensed.
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 12:58 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> <Bah, most people keep proprietary code in linux kernel modules, and this is
> mostly ok and accepted. After all the kernel-module interface provides an as
> good code separation as the kenrel-userland interface does, at least if said
> modules do not use GPLed callbacks in the kernel, but they usually don't need
> to.>
>
> The problem with using loadable modules is that, as someone in this forum has educated me, Linux kernel developers have a strong prejudice against APIs needed by proprietary loadable modules.
Well, it is a well defined API for third party modules. and you are supposed
to follow the rules, or expect random breakage all over. This is the same on
any kernel out there (solaris, microsoft, whatever) and a rule driver writers
have to conform too.
The only difference with the window situation is that here you have the full
code, so it is more tempting to access any random bit of kernel code, while
you have to do some positive reverse-engineering or have insider access in the
proprietary kernels.
This is not a licencing problem, but a discipline and conformance to API
problem. I suppose if driver writers are unhappy with some of the API, they
can voice their opinion on LKML, and request a modification of the module
visible API, the same as if someone was writing drivers for proprietary
kernels, could ask for an API modification.
I leave it to you to bet on where such an API modification is more probable,
with the linux development model, or for windows drivers for example.
It is still a licence problem though if i write some kernel code, and declare
that i don't want it ot be linked with non-GPL compatible modules, then this
code cannot be part of the well defined module API, obviously. It could be
replaced if needed though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 7:13 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> Well, it is a well defined API for third party modules. and you are supposed
> to follow the rules, or expect random breakage all over. This is the same on
> any kernel out there (solaris, microsoft, whatever) and a rule driver writers
> have to conform too.
The problem is that it is only well defined for each release. The
following release may suddenly decide to change the licesne of a
"well-defined API" such that you can no longer use it.
> This is not a licencing problem, but a discipline and conformance to API
> problem. I suppose if driver writers are unhappy with some of the API, they
> can voice their opinion on LKML, and request a modification of the module
> visible API, the same as if someone was writing drivers for proprietary
> kernels, could ask for an API modification.
It's still somewhat a licensing problem...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 7:39 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> > Well, it is a well defined API for third party modules. and you are supposed
> > to follow the rules, or expect random breakage all over. This is the same on
> > any kernel out there (solaris, microsoft, whatever) and a rule driver writers
> > have to conform too.
>
> The problem is that it is only well defined for each release. The
> following release may suddenly decide to change the licesne of a
> "well-defined API" such that you can no longer use it.
Well, indeed, as windows has been known to change or modify the driver API
unilaterally, so what else is new ? And it is GPLed software, so you are free
to start from the old code base and do your own stuff.
Notice that the only reason the above would be unmodifiable is if the new
release where to include new GPLed code the author doesn't want to be linked
with non-GPL-compatible modules.
Also notice that most of the above complains probably come because in older
linux kernel releases the well defined API was not so clearly delimited, and
this was changed during the 2.6 release cycle.
> > This is not a licencing problem, but a discipline and conformance to API
> > problem. I suppose if driver writers are unhappy with some of the API, they
> > can voice their opinion on LKML, and request a modification of the module
> > visible API, the same as if someone was writing drivers for proprietary
> > kernels, could ask for an API modification.
>
> It's still somewhat a licensing problem...
Well, yes, but a legitimate one, so a feature, and not a problem.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 8:01 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Well, indeed, as windows has been known to change or modify the driver API
> unilaterally, so what else is new ? And it is GPLed software, so you are free
> to start from the old code base and do your own stuff.
The difference is that drivers made for Windows almost always continue
to work years later...even when using the supposedly "stable" or "well
defined" driver API provided by Linux, most drives can't even compile
right between Linux kernel versions.
> > It's still somewhat a licensing problem...
>
> Well, yes, but a legitimate one, so a feature, and not a problem.
That's a matter of opinion. To me it is a problem.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 8:04 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:01:03AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > Well, indeed, as windows has been known to change or modify the driver API
> > unilaterally, so what else is new ? And it is GPLed software, so you are free
> > to start from the old code base and do your own stuff.
>
> The difference is that drivers made for Windows almost always continue
> to work years later...even when using the supposedly "stable" or "well
> defined" driver API provided by Linux, most drives can't even compile
> right between Linux kernel versions.
Hehe, and microsoft has not been convicted of changing their internal APIs in
order to make life difficult for third parties ?
> > > It's still somewhat a licensing problem...
> >
> > Well, yes, but a legitimate one, so a feature, and not a problem.
>
> That's a matter of opinion. To me it is a problem.
To have a clearly defined driver API is a problem ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
102
From:
SE
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 7:16 AM
in response to: edison
|
|
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> Alright, I wonder about this myself as well. I read through all
> the threads
> discussing this issue at http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?
> forumID=13.
> I feel compelled to make a few comments and suggestions:
>
> 1. Instead of rampantly speculating about what the FSF website
> means when it
> says the CDDL and GPL are incompatible, has anybody tried asking
> the FSF?
>
> 2. Many of us consider GPL/CDDL compatibility a prerequisite for
> the Open
> Solaris project to flourish. Consider the wonderful cross-
> pollination between
> OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, and the vast repertoire of the
> FSF. The
> compatibility between the BSD and GPL licenses permits and
> encourages this.
> Alan Cox and others simultaneously contribute code to projects
> under both
> licenses without worrying about the consequences.
There is one Alan Cox that developes stuff for Linux,
and another Alan Cox that developes for BSD.
Two different persons.
> 3. The hostility toward the GPL in the threads here made me
> seriously consider
> whether I want to continue any involvement in the Open Solaris
> project.
> Already, the Nevada builds leverage a not insubstantial amount of
> GPL'd and FSF
> software.
>
> Sun should be nurturing a cooperative and mutually beneficial
> relationship with
> the FSF. If they have not been doing this from the beginning, Sun
> should be
> extending an olive branch.
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
J^2
Give a guy a break and you end up broken
-- Lina Inverse
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Richard M. Stal...
rms@gnu.org
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 4:07 PM
in response to: edison
|
|
1. Instead of rampantly speculating about what the FSF website means when it
says the CDDL and GPL are incompatible, has anybody tried asking the FSF?
We say two licenses are "incompatible" when combining code released
under those two licenses into a single program is legally impossible
because any way of licensing the combination would violate at least
one of the licenses.
2. Many of us consider GPL/CDDL compatibility a prerequisite for the Open
Solaris project to flourish.
The current license of Solaris is a free software license, which means
it is basically ethical. But it would be a more useful contribution
to the free software commnuity if it had a GPL-compatible license, and
I wish Sun would make that change.
Consider the wonderful cross-pollination between
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux, and the vast repertoire of the FSF.
*BSD and Linux don't belong in the same list, because *BSD are
operating systems. Linux, however, is just a kernel. If you're
thinking of the operating system in which Linux is used, then what
you've said is an understatement. That system is not just cooperating
with our work, it basically *is* our work. It is a variant of the GNU
system. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
explanation.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
29
From:
Cyberspace
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 4:29 PM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> *BSD and Linux don't belong in the same list, because *BSD are
> operating systems. Linux, however, is just a kernel. If you're
> thinking of the operating system in which Linux is used, then what
> you've said is an understatement. That system is not just cooperating
> with our work, it basically *is* our work. It is a variant of the GNU
> system. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
> explanation.
Because I principally do kernel programming, I was thinking specifically of the
Linux and BSD kernels. Many of the kernel hackers contribute code to both
projects even though they reside under different licenses, namely the GPL and
BSD licenses. I should have been more explicit.
Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting. Indeed, the
cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case for
compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses.
In the GNU/Linux forest, we should all make a conscious effort to refer to the
kernel as Linux and the operating system as GNU/Linux. I will redouble my
efforts. Unfortunately, falling into the Linux Vernacular of calling the
operating system merely Linux comes easily in the Linux forest.
Regards,
Rob
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 6:20 PM
in response to: edison
|
|
On 8/19/05, Robert W. Fuller <garbageout at sbcglobal dot net> wrote:
> Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting. Indeed, the
> cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case for
> compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses.
I don't follow the cross pollination between different projects
argument. If anything, I see a lot of code from *BSDs or other GPL
compatible license projects going to GPL projects and very little
coming back. The GPL cross-pollination argument only holds water in
the sense that GPL projects get to benefit from other people's code
because the license is compatible but those projects cannot likewise
benefit from GPL projects. If you ask me, it's very one-sided benefit.
I think it's a lie to call it cross-pollination. There are always
exceptions of course, but it's relatively rare from what I see.
If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
to me. The GPL's inability to co-exist reasonably with commercial
closed software or software under incompatible terms is the greatest
and most unreasonable condition it suffers from.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
29
From:
Cyberspace
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 7:36 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
> If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
modified to be GPL compatible.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 7:48 PM
in response to: edison
|
|
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an
> instant, and I suspect
> > others would as well. Because at that point, it
> would become useless
>
> Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL,
> merely that the license be
> modified to be GPL compatible.
But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
S.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 7:59 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On 8/19/05, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an
> > instant, and I suspect
> > > others would as well. Because at that point, it
> > would become useless
> >
> > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL,
> > merely that the license be
> > modified to be GPL compatible.
>
> But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
>
That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible
is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed
GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code
become this way. Then the people that made the most original
contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the
original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's
the principle of the matter.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does
thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 5:50 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
> >
>
> That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible
> is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed
> GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code
> become this way. Then the people that made the most original
> contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the
> original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's
> the principle of the matter.
But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 8:33 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On 8/22/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
> Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
> > >
> >
> > That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible
> > is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed
> > GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code
> > become this way. Then the people that made the most original
> > contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the
> > original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's
> > the principle of the matter.
>
> But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
> and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you
have misunderstood me.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does
thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 8:45 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
> > and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
>
> As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you
> have misunderstood me.
If you have a different intention, please describe it.....
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
171
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does
thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 8:51 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
>>> But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
>>> and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
>>
>> As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you
>> have misunderstood me.
>
> If you have a different intention, please describe it.....
Considered guilty until proven otherwhise, eh?
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does
thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 8:52 AM
in response to: draganc
|
|
Dragan Cvetkovic <opensolaris dot src at gmail dot com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
> >
> >>> But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
> >>> and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
> >>
> >> As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you
> >> have misunderstood me.
> >
> > If you have a different intention, please describe it.....
>
> Considered guilty until proven otherwhise, eh?
????
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 9:40 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On 8/22/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
> Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > > But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
> > > and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
> >
> > As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you
> > have misunderstood me.
>
> If you have a different intention, please describe it.....
Okay, since there seems to be a language barrier. I do not recall ever
having asked to make the CDDL GPL compatible. In fact, from my
viewpoint I've argued against it, because I think the GPL is the
problem, not the CDDL.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 10:06 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Okay, since there seems to be a language barrier. I do not recall ever
> having asked to make the CDDL GPL compatible. In fact, from my
> viewpoint I've argued against it, because I think the GPL is the
> problem, not the CDDL.
FWIW, that's how I've interpreted your comments--and I also agree
with your assertion that it is the GPL that is the problem, not
CDDL.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 10:46 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
<snip>
>I think the GPL is the problem, not the CDDL.
GPL is NOT a problem for software developers (or companies) who don't have to rely on selling software products for a living (e.g., those who can live on donations--like FSF, or prosper by charging fees for providing services--like IBM, etc.) But the issue becomes this: can we allow those fortunate few to dictate how the unfortunate rest should live their professional lives?
GPL, however, is a BIG problem for hardware manufacturers which cannot rely on copyright to protect their trade secrets. A couple of months ago, St. Ignutcious (i.e., Sir RMS) gave a talk in Taipei. The gist of his talk was to urge Taiwan's PC periphery makers to publish their specs, so the free software community (Sir RMS doesn't like the term "open source") can write drivers for them.
But the fact is (& everyone in the audience knows that), in the cut throat PC peripheral world, once you publish your specs, your most valuable company asset (trade secret) will be gone, and someone will instantly build a bunch of bigger and better plants in China undercutting your price by at least half.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 1:24 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
I must say that I am really pissed off by an off-line reply I received from one of SUN's engineers who asked whether I "have ever built out a manufacturing plant for electronic gear?"
Personally we have not. We are not in the hardware or even the software business. But one of clients was once planning to build a DRAM fab in Montreal area. Cost: about $2 billion.
Most if not all of the technical questions posted on this forum are left unanswered, but Sun's engineers do find time to engage in non-technical matters. Perhaps most of the trashing about Sun are well justified.
If any of Sun's engineers considers this a flame bait, so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 2:13 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
>Most if not all of the technical questions posted on this forum are left unanswered, but Sun's >engineers do find time to engage in non-technical matters. Perhaps most of the trashings >about Sun are well justified.
The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming majority of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris to me serves as a clear warning as to whether Sun is really committed to opensource. Talk is cheap. & cheap talks invite resentments. To induce interests, someone must show actions.
While the GPL'ed Linux kernel does not allow proprietary device drivers to be included in the kernel itself, they can be easilly added as loadable modules. A number of yum/apt repositories have been constructed to make loading these modules painless. Several Linux distributions (e.g., Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc.) even pre-load those proprietary drivers, thus erasing one of the main advantages CDDL might have over the GPL.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
Columbia, Maryland
Registered:
8/4/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 2:26 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> Most if not all of the technical questions posted on this forum are
> left unanswered, but Sun's engineers do find time to engage in
> non-technical matters. Perhaps most of the trashings about Sun are
> well justified.
> The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming
> majority of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris to me serves as a clear
> warning as to whether Sun is really committed to opensource. Talk is
> cheap. & cheap talks invite resentments. To induce interests,
> someone must show actions.
Having met a number of Sun engineers at OSCON, I can assure you that
this is not the case; they're all great people and seem genuinely
excited by OpenSolaris and having it succeed. Their excitement is
infectious.
Now, stop fud mongering and move on; talk is cheap, but having to read
cheap talk is not.
--Wez.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (roun
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:14 PM
in response to: wez
|
|
Wez Furlong wrote:
<Having met a number of Sun engineers at OSCON, I can assure you that
this is not the case; they're all great people and seem genuinely
excited by OpenSolaris and having it succeed. Their excitement is
infectious.>
I am glad to hear that at least some of Sun's engineers are infectiously excited about OpenSolaris. I hope they will find some tangible way to show their enthusiasm to those of us who never got a chance to attend OSCON, or whatever that is. So far & for the foreseeable future, my only means to measure them is via the web forum.
<Now, stop fud mongering and move on; talk is cheap, but having to read
cheap talk is not.>
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (roun
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 5:28 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> I am glad to hear that at least some of Sun's engineers are
> infectiously excited about OpenSolaris.
Please note that not all of Sun's engineers actually work on Solaris
and/or OpenSolaris. IMHO, those that do work on it *are* infectiously
excited about OpenSolaris.
That still leaves several thousand engineers who could care less about
it :-) Not to imply that they really don't care about OpenSolaris,
but consider the engineers working on J2EE who are themselves
infectiously excited about their recent efforts to open-source the
Application Server, or those who are infectiously excited about
OpenOffice, or those others who are infectiously excited about
NetBeans. Then there is myself, trying to get someone else (anyone,
please!) infectiously excited about systems architecture :-)
I have no idea who you were conversing with, but is it so
unconceivable that they might have interests other than OpenSolaris?
Sun is doing a *lot* in the open source arena, with much more "in
progress". Unfortunately, that means that many of us are heads down
over committed doing the grunt work to make that future a reality, and
so, don't have the time or energy to fully engage in these high volume
discussion forums (forae?)
Don't forget that, like all (most?) of you, Sun Engineers are only
human. We all have our good and our bad days, email that somehow
changes meaning between sending and reading, misunderstandings,
context-cache misses and the like. Sometimes, no matter how hard we
try not to, something sets us off and someone else catches the brunt
of it. For myself and the others in this community who on occasion
behave in ways that are not up to our own high standards, I apologize
for whatever it was that was said, and I hope that we can continue
building a community of understanding, trust and friendship.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
802
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 2:51 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
...... original reformatted .....
> >Most if not all of the technical questions posted on this forum are left
> >unanswered, but Sun's >engineers do find time to engage in non-technical
> >matters. Perhaps most of the trashings >about Sun are well justified.
>
> The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming majority
> of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris to me serves as a clear warning as
> to whether Sun is really committed to opensource. Talk is cheap. &
> cheap talks invite resentments. To induce interests, someone must show
> actions.
>
> While the GPL'ed Linux kernel does not allow proprietary device drivers
> to be included in the kernel itself, they can be easilly added as
> loadable modules. A number of yum/apt repositories have been constructed
> to make loading these modules painless. Several Linux distributions
> (e.g., Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc.) even pre-load those proprietary drivers,
> thus erasing one of the main advantages CDDL might have over the GPL.
My personal experience tells me that this statement is totally inaccurate.
Why, because with the kernel interfaces constantly changing, most Linux
driver developers have been unable to provide drivers as loadable modules
or in binary form. Even the module loaders requirements change. And why
is this? Well because Linus believes that stable APIs and ABIs stiffle
innovation. Has he looked at Solaris 10 and DTrace recently - no impact on
Solaris API/ABI stability while providing *lots* of innovation!
Case in point: I "tried" to build a Linux system about 12 months ago to
take advantage of the excellent 3Ware 9500 SATA RAID controller. I wanted
to build a system to act as disk based backup archiver and SVN (subversion)
server. I picked Suse Linux Professional 9.0 (then current) and got the
box up and running without too many headaches. Then here's what happened
next (excuse cut/paste from an earlier email):
--- begin cut/paste ----
- after running the system for about a week, upgraded the Linux kernel to
resolve a published kernel exploit and the system refused to boot. You
know - after it's been running long enough that you've invested some man
hours into it!
+ the driver is a loadable module with a "rev number" tied to the
particular kernel release. Upgrade the kernel and the version #s
don't match and the module won't load.
- According to 3Ware tech support [7], I should have (in this order):
+ patched the new kernel - step 1 (did that)
+ downloaded/installed the corresponding kernel build environment - step 2
+ built a new kernel - step 3
+ downloaded the 3Ware driver source kit - step 4
+ built a new driver from source - step 5
+ updated the module/kernel rev level "stuff" - step 6
+ then rebooted - step 7 (did that!)
Of course I did step 1 & step 7. Silly me! About 2 1/2 man days later I
had installed the OS onto another drive and used that to mount my RAID
drive, and after several unsuccessful iterations, succeeded in doing the
above and recovering the system intact. My software development schedule
took a serious hit! :(
Epilog: After all that I decided that this solution was also too kludgey
for me to live with. Perhaps I've been spoiled by Sol x86, or perhaps
there are'nt enough hours in the day to deal with Linux madness. The usual
Linux story - you bleed serious man hours to get it running. You bleed
serious manhours to keep it running.
[7] nice guy, very knowledgeable/helpful. We both whined about Linux,
talked through the recovery plan, then he wished me luck!
--- end cut/paste ----
Even the 3Ware tech support guy whined about how hard it was to try to
deliver a binary driver into Linux. They wanted to - so as to reduce
their maintenance burden and having to take calls from users like myself
whose RAID subsystem became inaccessible after a security patch was
applied. And they had been able to do so under earlier Linux releases by
programming around Linux interfaces - but then those interfaces changed and
forced them to deliver source code and their user community to build a new
loadable module from source every time they have to patch the kernel.
Some users would say (and I'm *not* saying this), that the Linux zealots
will do whatever it takes to prevent someone from shipping binary only code
into the Linux environment.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134
OpenSolaris Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:16 PM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
On 8/22/05, Al Hopper <al@logical-approach.com> wrote:
> Some users would say (and I'm *not* saying this), that the Linux zealots
> will do whatever it takes to prevent someone from shipping binary only code
> into the Linux environment.
And I think they'd be right, some choice quotes from Linus Torvalds himself:
http://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html
"I _want_ people to expect that interfaces change. I _want_ people to
know that binary-only modules cannot be used from release to release.
I want people to be really really REALLY aware of the fact that when
they use a binary-only module, they tie their hands. " - Linus
Torvalds
"Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules,
it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I
want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a
cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. " -
Linus Torvalds
The message I linked above is one of the reasons why I've never
contributed and will probably never contribute to the Linux kernel.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3
From:
Registered:
8/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 4:54 PM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
You do argue a lot around here, was going to ignore it, but here goes.
alhopper, you complain about installing a 3ware card with a binary only driver. Note
(a) 3ware used to provide source for their cards under Linux; they sold a lot because of this. Disappointed they no longer do.
(b) They dont provide a Solaris driver at all. Rather than moaning do something about that.
(c) Most Linux users in a professional situation consider anything without an open source driver as not only unsupported but unsupportable - there is no Linux vendor who will give you commercial support if you use such a driver, as none of the vendors have the source code. Even if you believe that the driver is not causing the problem it doesnt help, as it runs in kernel space.
(d) This is a very different situation from Sun (and it is something Sun could leverage in the case of hardware that is likely never to have open source drivers eg 3D graphics; as Sun can get access to source code and has a history of working with closed source drivers).
(e) So dont complain about Linux not supporting some bit of hardware that doesnt have an open source driver - buy some other hardware.
(f) Linux has very different priorities to Solaris. And different uses. And a different development process. Stop complaining; try and understand the different cultures, and look outside of your little field.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
802
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 7:53 PM
in response to: justin.c
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Justin Cormack wrote:
[ ... original post reformatted per normal list email standards ... ]
> You do argue a lot around here, was going to ignore it, but here goes.
>
> alhopper, you complain about installing a 3ware card with a binary only driver. Note
^^^^^^^^
No - I did'nt complain. Where do you see that?
> (a) 3ware used to provide source for their cards under Linux; they sold a
> lot because of this. Disappointed they no longer do.
They did and they still do. Look on their site. Where did I say they "no
longer do". Why did'nt you look on their site before you posted to the
list. Please do your homework and at least get the facts straight. Read
my post again and you'll see where I said:
> + downloaded the 3Ware driver source kit - step 4
> + built a new driver from source - step 5
You need to pay more attention and read posts more carefully.
> (b) They dont provide a Solaris driver at all. Rather than moaning do something about that.
^^^^^^^
Where do you see me moan?
It's incredible what you can read in my post that is simply *not there*!
I have done something about the lack of a 3Ware Solaris driver - why do you
assume that I have not?
> (c) Most Linux users in a professional situation consider anything
> without an open source driver as not only unsupported but unsupportable -
> there is no Linux vendor who will give you commercial support if you use
> such a driver, as none of the vendors have the source code. Even if you
> believe that the driver is not causing the problem it doesnt help, as it
> runs in kernel space.
> (d) This is a very different situation from Sun (and it is something Sun
> could leverage in the case of hardware that is likely never to have open
> source drivers eg 3D graphics; as Sun can get access to source code and
> has a history of working with closed source drivers).
> (e) So dont complain about Linux not supporting some bit of hardware that
^^^^^^^^
???
> doesnt have an open source driver - buy some other hardware.
Again - if you read my post you'll understand that:
1) I got the system working right from the get go with the supplied 3Ware
binary driver module.
2) I lost the system after applying a kernel security patch.
3) I retrieved the system after following the full 7 steps outlined in the
post and got the system to boot off the 3Ware RAID card *again* and with my
original data intact.
> (f) Linux has very different priorities to Solaris. And different uses.
> And a different development process. Stop complaining; try and understand
^^^^^^^^^^^
Again I have not complained. Where are you getting this krap from?
> the different cultures, and look outside of your little field.
Oh I think I did quite well at looking outside my "little field". I'd say
that there are not that many people who could have done what I did with
this system after I lost the RAID set and retrieved it intact. The 3Ware
support guy was quite impressed. Also - you have no idea who I am or how
broad or narrow my field is.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134
OpenSolaris Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (roun
Posted:
Aug 23, 2005 9:49 AM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
Al Hopper wrote:
<My personal experience tells me that this statement is totally inaccurate.
Why, because with the kernel interfaces constantly changing, most Linux
driver developers have been unable to provide drivers as loadable modules
or in binary form. Even the module loaders requirements change. And why
is this? Well because Linus believes that stable APIs and ABIs stiffle
innovation. Has he looked at Solaris 10 and DTrace recently - no impact on
Solaris API/A
You're absolutely right (I should have known better). & this is one of the reasons why it has so often happened that a LiveCD (which freezes the kernel version, kernel API, loadable module, etc.) works on a particular hardware setup, but an installed system doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:02 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On 8/22/05, W. Wayne Liauh <wp at hawaiilinux dot us> wrote:
> The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming majority of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris to me serves as a clear warning as to whether Sun is really committed to opensource. Talk is cheap. & cheap talks invite resentments. To induce interests, someone must show actions.
>
The eye of the beholder I suppose. I've seen anything but apathy.
People seem to assume that no response = purposefully ignoring. Most
of the SUN folks I see have a lot on their plates. Replying to a
non-technical post takes far less time than involving one's self in
replying to a technical one.
> While the GPL'ed Linux kernel does not allow proprietary device drivers to be included in the kernel itself, they can be easilly added as loadable modules. A number of yum/apt repositories have been constructed to make loading these modules painless. Several Linux distributions (e.g., Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc.) even pre-load those proprietary drivers, thus erasing one of the main advantages CDDL might have over the GPL.
Except that newer versions of the kernel continue to place kernel APIs
under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work
from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by
GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind.
Not only that, the kernel maintainers are actively removing any
interfaces that they perceive as only benefiting binary drivers.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:09 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Not only that, the kernel maintainers are actively removing any
> interfaces that they perceive as only benefiting binary drivers.
If that really is the case (and I don't doubt you), how long will
it be before commercial SW developers look at their spiraling Linux
maintenance costs, and decide that Linux is no longer a cost-effective
platform for them to support, and look towards somehing like Solaris
where binary compaibility and mixing of licensing is not only allowed,
it is almost (in the case of the former) a religion?
With less commercial SW, Linux will slowly fade and Solaris will retake
the datacentre. Well, that's my $0.02...
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:41 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > Not only that, the kernel maintainers are actively removing any
> > interfaces that they perceive as only benefiting binary drivers.
>
> If that really is the case (and I don't doubt you), how long will
> it be before commercial SW developers look at their spiraling Linux
> maintenance costs, and decide that Linux is no longer a cost-effective
> platform for them to support, and look towards somehing like Solaris
> where binary compaibility and mixing of licensing is not only allowed,
> it is almost (in the case of the former) a religion?
>
> With less commercial SW, Linux will slowly fade and Solaris will retake
> the datacentre. Well, that's my $0.02...
Do not expect that to happen within the next 15 months...
Linux users are very conservative... it takes a long time to convince them
that something did change.
If there is the right kind of of advertisement and if OpenSolaris slowly
but steady reestablishes, I see a good chance.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:30 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
<Except that newer versions of the kernel continue to place kernel APIs
under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work
from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by
GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind.>
The way nVidia solved this problem, as I understand it, is to divide the module loading process into two steps, first their own API, which needs to be recompiled for each kernel release, then the module itself.
<Not only that, the kernel maintainers are actively removing any
interfaces that they perceive as only benefiting binary drivers.>
I didn't know that. This is a good point.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 3:50 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
"W. Wayne Liauh" <wp at HawaiiLinux dot us> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> <Except that newer versions of the kernel continue to place kernel APIs
> under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work
> from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by
> GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind.>
>
>
> The way nVidia solved this problem, as I understand it, is to divide the module loading process into two steps, first their own API, which needs to be recompiled for each kernel release, then the module itself.
I should add a note that I am getting tired of the
fact that Linux constantly changes interfaces.
If there was at least a move towards a better, more orthogonal
and more general interface, but they change interfaces just for the benefit
of changing something. This is extremely disappointing if you like to
support a portable and stable program like cdrtools.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 4:43 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On 8/22/05, W. Wayne Liauh <wp at hawaiilinux dot us> wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> <Except that newer versions of the kernel continue to place kernel APIs
> under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work
> from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by
> GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind.>
>
>
> The way nVidia solved this problem, as I understand it, is to divide the module loading process into two steps, first their own API, which needs to be recompiled for each kernel release, then the module itself.
>
Except that it doesn't really solve the problem, because their driver
still frequently breaks with newer kernels. That loading interface
only helps in the sense that it can be recompiled for different
versions of the kernel so that the driver will work right, but if they
haven't yet released an update-of-the-week-practically the driver may
not work anymore. ATi has this issue as well. 2.6.10 -> 2.6.11 broke
their driver, and so on. Each new version seems to wreak complete
havoc on things. It makes no sense.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 4:55 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>>Most if not all of the technical questions posted on this forum are left unanswered, but Sun's >engineers do find time to engage in non-technical matters. Perhaps most of the trashings >about Sun are well justified.
>
> The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming majority of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris
Really? I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I think it's just the
opposite, actually. The organization is massive, so it will take some
time for engineers on all projects to fully engage, but they are surely
engaging. Cut us a little slack. I see the core kernel engineers ere
every day, actually -- on these lists as well as in their blogs. There
are many lists on the project, too. Also, many kernel engineers were at
OSCON and LinuxWorld a few weeks ago, too, directly interacting with
multiple levels of developers. As was the CAB and OpenSolaris marketing.
> to me serves as a clear warning as to whether Sun is really committed to opensource.
Well, we are. And more is coming (although I have no clue what, so I'm
not hinting that I know something specific). Not only in code and
projects but also in coordination among the various Sun communities.
Which is critical as we all learn how to do this on this scale.
Company-wide, I mean. Did you catch Simon's announcement?
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=oso_a_milestone_on_sun
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=open_source_ombudsman
Also, I keep getting calls from other parts of Sun that want to either
get involved with OpenSolaris or open their own stuff. Many of us here
are literally going around and educating Sun on what we just did and we
regularly point to this community as the example.
And I see we just got involved in open source DRM:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-08/sunflash.20050822.2.html
I don't know jack about DRM, but I bet this gets a lot of play.
> Talk is cheap. & cheap talks invite resentments. To induce interests, someone must show actions.
I think we are talking *and* acting. I think that's pretty clear, too.
You should have been around here 18 months ago when we were *really*
just talking. :) At least now we are actually open. Look, we opened when
we thought we had a reasonable offering after running a pilot for 9
months. We started that pilot with 18 non-Sun people and a handful of
Sun engineers. Like *one* handful. Literally. We launched with 145
non-Sun people and a couple dozen Sun engineers. Now thousands of people
are registered on the site, hundreds are signed up to these lists, tens
of thousands are hitting the forums, the entire Sun kernel engineering
leadership is engaged, and hundreds more engineers are coming. This next
phase of the project (governance, co-development, etc) we are doing
right out in the open specifically so we can work with the wider
OpenSolaris community. It may not be moving as quickly as you like and
it may not be pretty, but we *are* making progress for a corporation of
this size. And it's more than reasonable, I believe. We'll get there.
You'll see over time.
Jim G.
--
Jim Grisanzio, Community Manager, OpenSolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
29
From:
Cyberspace
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what
does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 22, 2005 5:59 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>>
>> The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming
>> majority of Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris
>
> Really? I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I think it's just the
> opposite, actually. The organization is massive, so it will take some
> time for engineers on all projects to fully engage, but they are surely
> engaging. Cut us a little slack. I see the core kernel engineers ere
> every day, actually -- on these lists as well as in their blogs. There
> are many lists on the project, too. Also, many kernel engineers were at
> OSCON and LinuxWorld a few weeks ago, too, directly interacting with
> multiple levels of developers. As was the CAB and OpenSolaris marketing.
As an outside observer, I would like to second Jim's opinion. I asked a
technical question about whether or not kernel stacks are pageable and received
excellent replies from Sun engineers familiar with segment drivers! I was
really impressed. This is the sort of technical information that will enable
people outside Sun to contribute to the Open Solaris kernel.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does thismean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:40 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:59:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 8/19/05, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
> > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an
> > > instant, and I suspect
> > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it
> > > would become useless
> > >
> > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL,
> > > merely that the license be
> > > modified to be GPL compatible.
> >
> > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
> >
>
> That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible
> is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed
> GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code
> become this way. Then the people that made the most original
> contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the
> original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's
> the principle of the matter.
Did they qsk for the modification code to be back-ported to the BSD licence ?
I bet most modificators of BSDed code would have no major problem in that, and
for the others it is no worse than some prorietary code company takign BSDed
code and giving nothing back, and you evidently have no problem with that,
which is even worse. And using the GPL is the best protection against this
behavior, and probably one of the most prominent reasons why the linux kernel
and the GNU/Linux userland on toip of that have become so succesful.
And anyone claiming otherwise is either embittered of the succes of GPLed
project, or has some hidden code-stealing agendas themselves.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 19, 2005 9:06 PM
in response to: edison
|
|
Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
>modified to be GPL compatible.
If you can find one (i.e., "GPL compatible"), you really should patent it. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
315
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 11:31 AM
in response to: edison
|
|
On 8/19/05, Robert W. Fuller <garbageout at sbcglobal dot net> wrote:
> Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
> modified to be GPL compatible.
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered ethical ?
0.02
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
stefan dot teleman at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Richard M. Stal...
rms@gnu.org
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 21, 2005 5:06 PM
in response to: steleman
|
|
Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
otherwise considered ethical ?
The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all,
open source licenses are also free software licenses.
We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other
free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has
substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL
to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements
would stretch it all out of shape.
I'd rather not speak of "other open source licenses", since that would
imply calling the GPL an "open source license". As a free software
activist, I disagree with the basic philosophy of open source, so I
don't like referring to my work with that term. For more explanation,
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,783
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 23, 2005 5:17 AM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
"Richard M. Stallman" <rms at gnu dot org> wrote:
> Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
> GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
> other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
> otherwise considered ethical ?
>
> The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all,
> open source licenses are also free software licenses.
>
> We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other
> free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has
> substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL
> to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements
> would stretch it all out of shape.
If you do not mention where you see the problems, it is hard to
discuss the problems. So please name the problems from your point of view.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 23, 2005 7:26 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On 8/23/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
> "Richard M. Stallman" <rms at gnu dot org> wrote:
>
> > Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
> > GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
> > other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
> > otherwise considered ethical ?
> >
> > The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all,
> > open source licenses are also free software licenses.
> >
> > We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other
> > free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has
> > substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL
> > to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements
> > would stretch it all out of shape.
>
> If you do not mention where you see the problems, it is hard to
> discuss the problems. So please name the problems from your point of view.
FSF's comments about CDDL:
"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU
GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the
CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the
CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the
term "intellectual property"."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
And their usual word meaning game:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
Though you're right, I'd like to know what the "complex restrictions"
are. Doesn't seem much more complex than the GPL to me...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 28, 2005 4:32 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
> FSF's comments about CDDL:
> "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
> has **** complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU
> GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the
> CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the
> CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the
> term "intellectual property"."
I see this quoted a lot, and the part about "cannot legally be linked
together" is utter ****.
That being said, if you *do* link them together then you are prevented
from distributing because you cannot satify the conditoins of both licenses.
There is nothing in either license preventing you from linking GPL code
and CDDL code on your own systems if you have no intention of
distributing it.
Richard, as it seems that you are reading this list, is there any chance
of getting that FAQ answer clarified?
alan.
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance Engineer
Product Technical Support (APAC)
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:23 PM
in response to: alanh
|
|
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:32:54AM +1000, Alan Hargreaves - Product Technical Support (APAC) wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> >FSF's comments about CDDL:
> >"This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
> >has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU
> >GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the
> >CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the
> >CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the
> >term "intellectual property"."
>
> I see this quoted a lot, and the part about "cannot legally be linked
> together" is utter ****.
>
> That being said, if you *do* link them together then you are prevented
> from distributing because you cannot satify the conditoins of both licenses.
>
> There is nothing in either license preventing you from linking GPL code
> and CDDL code on your own systems if you have no intention of
> distributing it.
>
> Richard, as it seems that you are reading this list, is there any chance
> of getting that FAQ answer clarified?
Notice that the main point is in creating derivative works, or whatever those
are called, and the linking case is only one example of common ways to create
a derivative work, but depending on the case, just linking two pieces of code
together can make them become derivative works of one another or not. What is
linking anyway, nothing but juxtaposition of some bits with some added logic
to transfer the control flow between the one and the other.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:20 PM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:06:42PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the
> GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with
> other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are
> otherwise considered ethical ?
>
> The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all,
> open source licenses are also free software licenses.
>
> We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other
> free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has
> substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL
> to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements
> would stretch it all out of shape.
Hi Richard, ...
Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ? Mmm, silly
me, i guess i will find it on the FSF page, will have a look.
That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of the
kind that doesn't cause derivative work considerations ? I mean most of the
userland runs as well on linux, and the interface between it and the
opensolaris kernels is clearly defines, so it would be no problem running a
glibc based userland on top of an opensolaris kernel, even though the CDDL and
the GPL are incompatible ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Richard M. Stal...
rms@gnu.org
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 7:41 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ?
Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the
FSF to do that.
That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of the
kind that doesn't cause derivative work considerations ? I mean most of the
userland runs as well on linux, and the interface between it and the
opensolaris kernels is clearly defines, so it would be no problem running a
glibc based userland on top of an opensolaris kernel, even though the CDDL and
the GPL are incompatible ?
The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel.
People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined
program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary.
Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
315
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 8:38 PM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
On 9/7/05, Richard M. Stallman <rms at gnu dot org> wrote:
> The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel.
> People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined
> program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary.
>
> Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
IMHO Debian/OpenSolaris would be a very interesting project. And maybe
there is a way. If we can also find some common ground while at it,
even better.
0.02.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
stefan dot teleman at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 9:58 PM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
Thanks for your reply, :)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:41:47PM -0400, Richard M. Stallman wrote:
> Do you have some kind of further analysis of the CDDL somewhere ?
>
> Apparently we did not write one in detail. I will ask someone at the
> FSF to do that.
Ok, i look forward to it, i will again run it through debian-legal too, and
see what comes out.
I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue clauses,
which seem so controversial for debian.
> That said, am i right in thnking that the kernel/userland interface is of the
> kind that doesn't cause derivative work considerations ? I mean most of the
> userland runs as well on linux, and the interface between it and the
> opensolaris kernels is clearly defines, so it would be no problem running a
> glibc based userland on top of an opensolaris kernel, even though the CDDL and
> the GPL are incompatible ?
>
> The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel.
> People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined
> program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary.
Ok, this confirms my own analysis of this case.
> Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Richard M. Stal...
rms@gnu.org
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 8, 2005 10:01 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue clauses,
which seem so controversial for debian.
We do not object to them.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 9, 2005 11:29 AM
in response to: Richard M. Stal...
|
|
Richard M. Stallman rms at gnu dot wrote:
<Sven Luther wrote:
<<I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue clauses,
which seem so controversial for debian.>>
<We do not object to them.>
St. Ignatius (Sir RMS) is giving HIS blessing to CDDL & the Solaris kernel?
Am I DEARMING or WHAT?
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 9, 2005 12:29 PM
in response to: waynel
|
|
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:29:51AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> Richard M. Stallman rms at gnu dot wrote:
>
> <Sven Luther wrote:
>
> <<I wonder though what the FSF position is about those choice-of-venue clauses,
> which seem so controversial for debian.>>
>
> <We do not object to them.>
>
> St. Ignatius (Sir RMS) is giving HIS blessing to CDDL & the Solaris kernel?
>
> Am I DEARMING or WHAT?
Mmm, why did i not yet see that reply though ?
Anyway, hi is not giving his blessing only commenting on a question about
choice-of-venue, which happens to concer the CDDL too.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Richard M. Stal...
rms@gnu.org
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 8, 2005 10:01 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
> Note that the license of glibc is not the GPL. It is the LGPL.
Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
I don't think so. The LGPL is compatible with almost all kinds
of provisions; that's what it was designed for.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 8, 2005 4:31 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ?
I don't see how, given that the LGPL is compatible to proprietary
non-(open source/free)-software. From what I see the LGPL is
compatible with just abou any license...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 6:56 PM
in response to: edison
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
>
> Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
> modified to be GPL compatible.
Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6
From:
raliegh nc
Registered:
7/10/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 8:09 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by opensolaris. opensolaris would benefit greatly from having a GPL license. i believe in fact that most people that are using opensolaris start to customize their system to have as much gnu software as possible and be as easy to build programs as it is under linux. gnu software under opensolaris is like a 2rd thought as it shows up in /opt/sfw instead of /usr/local .... under linux gnu software is the esssential ingredient that allows programming tools to exist.
for example:
i just started to build kde. first i needed the qt library. i could not get a full build with qt 4.0. qt 3.4 built fine. under linux qt 4.0 build that the first time. then i tried to build kdelibs, could not build it under opensolaris, first time success under linux. gave up and just used the one that came with the companion disk. i would really lilke to know how they got kde to build in the first place?!
in conclusion opensolaris is a fine OS as is Bsd and Linux but making opensolaris GPL would make it more attractive for the opensource community.
michael
- i am using for solaris: 5.11 snv_18 i86pc i386 i86p on an AMD 3200 64
- as for linux i am using suse 9.2
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
315
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 8:26 PM
in response to: mwolfe
|
|
On 8/20/05, michael wolfe <mpwolfe at gmail dot com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> i would really lilke to know how they got kde to build in the first place?!
they typed './configure', then 'make'.
so, if i understand your point correctly, by changing the OpenSolaris
license from CDDL to GPL, it will become easier to compile kdelibs ?
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
stefan dot teleman at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 9:26 PM
in response to: mwolfe
|
|
On 8/20/05, michael wolfe <mpwolfe at gmail dot com> wrote:
> it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by opensolaris. opensolaris would benefit greatly from having a GPL license. i believe in fact that most people that are using opensolaris start to customize their system to have as much gnu software as possible and be as easy to build programs as it is under linux. gnu software under opensolaris is like a 2rd thought as it shows up in /opt/sfw instead of /usr/local .... under linux gnu software is the esssential ingredient that allows programming tools to exist.
>
No, *some* users and developers want their software to be GPL. And
just as those users will be turned off by OpenSolaris because it is
not, there will be many that will be turned off if it becomes GPL.
Additionally, your implication that OpenSolaris cannot use or benefit
from GPL tools or programs is false. Not all GNU software shows up
under /opt/sfw. Some shows up under /usr/sfw or other places. Some of
that GNU software is integrated by default into the system, hardly as
a "second thought".
The great thing about OpenSolaris is that GNU is not an essential
ingredient because SUN is already providing so much. It's a nice
addition, but certainly not required.
> in conclusion opensolaris is a fine OS as is Bsd and Linux but making opensolaris GPL would make it more attractive for the opensource community.
>
It would make it more attractive those developers that actually care
about the license, or are GPL zealots. The majority of users don't
care what license a program is under. They just like good software.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James Lick
jlick@drivel.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does
this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Aug 20, 2005 10:48 PM
in response to: mwolfe
|
|
michael wolfe wrote:
>it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by opensolaris.
>
>
I cannot agree with this statement. There are a lot of opensource
projects that are based on non-GPL licenses that seem to be doing quite
well. A lot of the *BSD releases are under one of the Berkeley variant
license. My personal opinion is that most developers want opensource
and the exact license used is not that important. (Personally I tend to
like the Berkeley style license best.)
And after reading more about the different licenses (thanks Andy Rucker
for posting the URL to the Open Source Licensing book), it seems to me
that the GPL is the one with more, not less restrictions than the other
opensource licenses. I understand and respect the original reasons for
the GPL (to prevent opensource software being turned into closed source
products), but it seems to me that the GPL is the license that is
causing difficulties as far as license compatibility. Plus, the fact
that the OpenSolaris kernel can support proprietary drivers makes it
more attractive to me (and likely to other commercial developers).
--
James Lick -- 黎建溥 -- jlick at jameslick dot com -- http://jameslick.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:27 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
> >
> > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
> > modified to be GPL compatible.
>
> Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it is as
simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?) thousands of
free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:37 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
On 9/6/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> >
> > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
> > >
> > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
> > > modified to be GPL compatible.
> >
> > Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
>
> Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it is as
> simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?) thousands of
> free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical.
What is unethical is a matter of opinion. Some people consider the GPL
unethical ;)
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:49 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:37:08PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 9/6/05, Sven Luther <sven dot luther at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> > >
> > > > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect
> > > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
> > > >
> > > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be
> > > > modified to be GPL compatible.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
> >
> > Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it is as
> > simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?) thousands of
> > free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical.
>
> What is unethical is a matter of opinion. Some people consider the GPL
> unethical ;)
Ah, yes ? i would really like to hear an explanation at how this can be, if
there is someone around who is not too ashamed to mention it in public.
Face it, if someone licence a piece of code under the GPL, it is his choice to
do so, and as user you have to live with the consequences.
If someone release a piece of code under a BSD-like licence, they have no
problem in allowing everyone to use the code, either by making it GPLed or
Proprietary, or even by including it in GPLed code and giving back its
modification to the original BSD project.
I fail to see what is unethical about following the author's wish when he
licence the code. After all without him giving out the code, you have nothing
at all.
But then, i guess the logical followup of someone finding the GPL unethical
would be to find all proprietary code unethical nd haveing all code ever
written fall in the public domain, and then take this to other areas, like the
film and music industry, to real physical property. Well, i guess there may be
some anarchist who would be happy with that, and in this case, yes, the GPL
would be a problem :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 4:54 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
>>
>>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>>> If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I
>>>> suspect
>>>> others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
>>>
>>> Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the
>>> license be
>>> modified to be GPL compatible.
>>
>> Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
>
> Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it
> is as
> simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?)
> thousands of
> free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical.
So I have to ask, why is it OK for the GPL to insist that in the name
of "compatibility" code under other licenses should be irrevocably
re-licensed under just the GPL when combined into derivative works, but
"unethical" to suggest that code licensed under the GPL should be
re-licensable under other licenses under the same circumstances?
Equally friendly :-)
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 5:12 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:54:23AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2005, at 00:27, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> >>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote:
> >>
> >>>Shawn Walker wrote:
> >>>>If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I
> >>>>suspect
> >>>>others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless
> >>>
> >>>Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the
> >>>license be
> >>>modified to be GPL compatible.
> >>
> >>Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible.
> >
> >Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it
> >is as
> >simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?)
> >thousands of
> >free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical.
>
> So I have to ask, why is it OK for the GPL to insist that in the name
> of "compatibility" code under other licenses should be irrevocably
I never saw GPL say such thing, nor did i think that GPL is capable of
authoring such thoughs let alone express it, unless Artificial Inteligence has
made such progresses that a mere licence is capable of thoughts :)
Well, Richard Stalmann, the FSF and other GPL-adherants are perfectly free to
voice their opinion about this, its caleld free speach, you know, but that has
nothng to say the code they wrote under the GPL is under the GPL, that you
will it or not.
> re-licensed under just the GPL when combined into derivative works, but
> "unethical" to suggest that code licensed under the GPL should be
> re-licensable under other licenses under the same circumstances?
Well, if you licence code under the BSD or another licence which code to be
integrated in GPLed work, then it is your express wish to allow that, and i
don't see why you should complain.
The truth is that the dominant open source/free software/whatever you name it
community is based on GPLed programs, and thus it is their opinion that an
GPL-compatible OpenSolaris makes more sense for everyone involved, but they
can only ask you to do it, and point you out the advantages of it in order to
convince you.
That said, i would never willingly release myself code under a BSDish licence,
unless i get some compensation for it. The GPL has no such problem, because
the way the GPL is used itself is compensation enough.
Now, notice that there is a misunderstanding here, the only one the GPL
protects is the customer/user of your product, which is assured that he will
not be held hostage by the provider of the code, it is just common usage to
largely distribute the GPLed code, but if you have a single lone customer, and
you give it the GPLed code, he will probably not even use it unless you are
not up to your part of the bargain, but that falls into contract law at this
point, and not copyright law.
> Equally friendly :-)
Indeed :)
> S.
S. too :)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Newport Beach, California
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 6:07 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. The FSF will not
change that regardless of how many times the GPL is revised.
OpenSolaris will never be under GPL because GPL is incompatible
with Solaris. OpenSolaris does not need to be compatible with
GPL because it is an operating system platform, not an application
that uses other GPL code.
End of discussion. If you are interested in working on a CDDL
project, then please participate in OpenSolaris. If you are not
interested in anything other than GPL, then please leave now.
Pissing in the wind is not a collaborative activity.
....Roy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 6:22 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
On Sep 7, 2005, at 02:07, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
> subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
> of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. The FSF will not
> change that regardless of how many times the GPL is revised.
>
> OpenSolaris will never be under GPL because GPL is incompatible
> with Solaris. OpenSolaris does not need to be compatible with
> GPL because it is an operating system platform, not an application
> that uses other GPL code.
I agree with your summary, Roy
> End of discussion. If you are interested in working on a CDDL
> project, then please participate in OpenSolaris. If you are not
> interested in anything other than GPL, then please leave now.
I don't agree with your conclusion, Roy. Sven is a Debian community
member who is here exploring the potential for a version of Debian with
an OpenSolaris kernel. He's most welcome here, although GPL religious
discussions are as you say probably worth forgetting. The specific
question about glibc use he asked earlier is of interest to me, though,
it seems highly relevant.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 12:43 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
>On Sep 7, 2005, at 02:07, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> End of discussion. If you are interested in working on a CDDL
>> project, then please participate in OpenSolaris. If you are not
>> interested in anything other than GPL, then please leave now.
>
>I don't agree with your conclusion, Roy. Sven is a Debian community
>member who is here exploring the potential for a version of Debian with
>an OpenSolaris kernel. He's most welcome here, although GPL religious
>discussions are as you say probably worth forgetting. The specific
>question about glibc use he asked earlier is of interest to me, though,
>it seems highly relevant.
Well, considering that the conclusion carries the premise "If you
are not interested in anything other than GPL" I can only agree with Roy;
as that is different from "I'm only interested in GPL'ed software"
of which a OpenSolaris based distribution can include an unlimited
amount and for which there certainly is room in OpenSolaris.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Hawkins
utsl@quic.net
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this
mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 9:16 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
> subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
> of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. The FSF will not
> change that regardless of how many times the GPL is revised.
They (FSF) should at least update it to address the common situation of
linking with libraries for which source is available under licenses even
the FSF considers free, but not GPL-compatible. The present situation is
fairly stupid and self-defeating.
> OpenSolaris will never be under GPL because GPL is incompatible
> with Solaris. OpenSolaris does not need to be compatible with
> GPL because it is an operating system platform, not an application
> that uses other GPL code.
It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
to everything.
Because of the vagueness of the GPL's exception for system libraries,
it's not exactly obvious under what circumstances (or if) it would be
legal to distribute a GPL'd program, such as gcc, linked with the CDDL'd
libc. That's a fairly important problem.
> End of discussion. If you are interested in working on a CDDL
> project, then please participate in OpenSolaris. If you are not
> interested in anything other than GPL, then please leave now.
> Pissing in the wind is not a collaborative activity.
Some people have legitimate interest in both OpenSolaris and GPL
software. It's a concern to those of us who do that there seems to be
conflict.
Personally, I really wish Sun had used a BSD license. It has the very
great virtue of being intelligible to people other than lawyers. Neither
the CDDL nor the GPL fits that description.
- --
---Nathan
"If Tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be
in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQDVAwUBQx5pu6UqhOQsTZ+hAQLRjQX+OAAd9A5HjavpE1AZ1xH4PtqKdBNGXmSh
yihaRy9BJ1vR/Dr317Eiix0eYpGPM36s4kABp7yUkq9RODYpEIe3oPxjaeqAV+P1
WAFcMI+HQoRZ8Ffru2Yu9wwlzi723ejt3vGuSWDOfwATRKp4gE6Lp8/zJHM3TddF
OAoXYooToNOYd9NukBCv5qA1k47AbEFXwc6k50xEMIpyPP4HZrVGGn7DBiBFxnT0
mysTTT8+DcBP8svmsKQ9SlqCQVsBvXUq
=znQW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 10:18 PM
in response to: Nathan Hawkins
|
|
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:16:59PM -0500, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > I see no reason for this conversation to continue, ad nauseum,
> > for the remainder of eternity. OpenSolaris is under CDDL.
> > GPL is incompatible with any license that is not a sublicensable
> > subset of GPL. That wasn't by accident -- it is the intention
> > of the FSF that all software be under the GPL. The FSF will not
> > change that regardless of how many times the GPL is revised.
>
> They (FSF) should at least update it to address the common situation of
> linking with libraries for which source is available under licenses even
> the FSF considers free, but not GPL-compatible. The present situation is
> fairly stupid and self-defeating.
Notice that the discussion which started this (or at least the one which got
me involved in this thread), mentioned the LGPL, which is exactly such a
licence. (well, upto a point, and not including statically linked code, but
well, i suppose OpenSolaris has dynamic linking, right ?).
> > OpenSolaris will never be under GPL because GPL is incompatible
> > with Solaris. OpenSolaris does not need to be compatible with
> > GPL because it is an operating system platform, not an application
> > that uses other GPL code.
>
> It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
> Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
> become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
> to everything.
Well, remember the system library excpetion, which allowed sun to distribute
the gcc toolchain in the past, provided it is not on the same CD media as the
OS itself. This is a bit inconvenient and means you have to distribute gcc and
stuff from a separate source, but still works just fine for opensolaris.
> Because of the vagueness of the GPL's exception for system libraries,
> it's not exactly obvious under what circumstances (or if) it would be
> legal to distribute a GPL'd program, such as gcc, linked with the CDDL'd
> libc. That's a fairly important problem.
Whatever is vague with it. You are allowed to link GPL code with system
libraries, if :
1) those system libraries are distributed as integral part of the OS.
2) the GPLed code is not distributed as integral part of the OS, but
separatedly.
So, depending on the distribution media (sun used to ship gcc as a separate CD
in the old days), you just need a separate CD iso, or a separate repository or
ftp archive, or whatever. I believe it is even possible to have it under a
different subdir in the same ftp server, like debian has main and non-free for
example.
> > End of discussion. If you are interested in working on a CDDL
> > project, then please participate in OpenSolaris. If you are not
> > interested in anything other than GPL, then please leave now.
> > Pissing in the wind is not a collaborative activity.
Bah, i don't care about licencing discussions so much, i was brought to these
threads because i heard by Andreas Schuldei about the possible Debian
Gnu/Opensolaris project (an OpenSolaris kernel, glibc and the whole debian
userland). And know what, there is lot of FUD going on about this, and after
some investigation it seems to me that the CDDL vs GPL incompatibility is a
moot point, and the main problem is the CDDL not being DFSG free because of
the choice of venu clause.
That said, i have seen rather rude and childish language of some of you guys
doing active GPL bashing and linux-FUDing, which i think a sad think when on
aims at community building, which i believe is the goal of OpenSolaris.
And no, i don't care about anything but the GPL, i have participated to the
XFree86 project, i am even maintaining a debian package (Objective Caml),
which is partly LGLP, with a static linking exception, and partly QPL, and
which prior to my involvemenet was a in-house-cooked-patch-only-non-free
licence, and i also maintain the unicorn ADSL modem driver module which
contains binary only code. I have been at this since 98 (when i became a
debian developper), and believe i have some experience with those licencing
issues, as well as discussion with the most staunch GPL defendant and even RMS
himself, and i thought that i could make you benefit from that knowledge and
maybe be an interface to at least the debian community and its legal team.
But then, if you are more interested in GPL bashing and isolating yourself,
...
> Some people have legitimate interest in both OpenSolaris and GPL
> software. It's a concern to those of us who do that there seems to be
> conflict.
I don't believe that to be the case.
> Personally, I really wish Sun had used a BSD license. It has the very
> great virtue of being intelligible to people other than lawyers. Neither
> the CDDL nor the GPL fits that description.
Simplicity at the cost of no protection at all, i don't think that would have
been acceptable to sun :). The code would just have found their way to
microsoft's code base quickly, altough i doubt they will not use it anyway :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2005 11:56 PM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
Sven Luther wrote:
<So, depending on the distribution media (sun used to ship gcc as a separate CD
in the old days), you just need a separate CD iso, or a separate repository or
ftp archive, or whatever. I believe it is even possible to have it under a
different subdir in the same ftp server, like debian has main and non-free for
example.>
You brought up a very interesting point. Since on a file-by-file basis, CDDL is essentially the same as GPL, I am now wondering whether it might a good idea (at least for sanity purposes) to separate the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel into two parts: the GPL part and the binary-only part. Eventually, the GPL part of the OpenSolaris kernel should be extensive enough such that a customer will feel comfortably protected (i.e., s/he will feel not being held hostage by Sun). Sun still gets to control the development of the GPL'ed portion of the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel, to the same extent as, or expectedly more so than, Linus does wrt the Linux kernel.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 1:15 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
>You brought up a very interesting point. Since on a file-by-file basis, CDDL is essentially the s
ame as GPL, I am now wondering whether it might a good idea (at least for sanity purposes) to separ
ate the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel into two parts: the GPL part and the binary-only part. Eventual
ly, the GPL part of the OpenSolaris kernel should be extensive enough such that a customer will fee
l comfortably protected (i.e., s/he will feel not being held hostage by Sun). Sun still gets to co
ntrol the development of the GPL'ed portion of the Solaris/OpenSolaris kernel, to the same extent a
s, or expectedly more so than, Linus does wrt the Linux kernel.
The GPL doesn't allow this. End of discussion.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 1:45 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Does not allow WHAT?
We may not like GPL, but let's not forget that GPL has the support of the largest and most proactive volunteer developer community in the history of mankind. So who should give it a **** about GPL. I am sure Sun's engineers can do everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,175
From:
US
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 2:18 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
The issue of open source licensing has become so important in the corporate world that last year, the Practicing Law Institute began to offer a special course in this area:
http://www.pli.edu/product/book_detail.asp?ptid=503&stid=28&id=EN00000000018334
This course was very well received, and PLI is offering a totally revised course this year:
http://www.pli.edu/product/book_detail.asp?ptid=503&stid=28&id=EN00000000020133
If it were left to engineers, CDDL would be the way to go. Definitely. However, there are legal issues (as aforementioned). But more importantly, there are marketing issues. I am not talking 'bout marketing to end-users, who probably could care less one way or another, but about marketing to open-source developers. In order to do the later, Sun probably has two options, one is try to convince them to erase their bias against CDDL--I don't know how that's possible b/c most of them don't even care to read the licence.
The second option is to try to re-package the OpenSolaris kernel to make it GPL compatible. The more I think about it, the less I feel it is impossible. But at least someone at Sun should give it a thought.
Of course, there is a third option, i.e., to hire a ton of developers, perhaps expanding the current head count by ten-fold.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 2:47 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
>If it were left to engineers, CDDL would be the way to go.
>Definitely. However, there are legal issues (as aforementioned). But
>more importantly, there are marketing issues. I am not talking 'b out
>marketing to end-users, who probably could care less one way or
>another, but about marketing to
>open-source developers. In order to do the later, Sun probably has
>two options, one is try to con vince them to erase their bias against
>CDDL--I don't know how that's possible b/c most of them don' t even
>care to read the licence.
Left to engineers? I'm not sure that engineers had all that much input.
The most often heard argument is "It's not the GPL"; that of course is
just insane and not really an argument but rather a statement of dogma
and as such has no place in a *discussion*.
>The second option is to try to re-package the OpenSolaris kernel to
>make it GPL compatible. The m ore I think about it, the less I feel it
>is impossible. But at least someone at Sun should give it
>a thought.
That presupposes that the powers-that-be actually want the GPL;
apart from the technical issues there also seems to be the strong
believe that Sun wants people to be able to stand on our shoulders
and build a product on top of OpenSolaris *without* having to surrender
their intellectual property.
Sven doesn't want his "free" software "stolen"; we don't think
you can actually "steal" something that is free.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 7:07 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> Sven doesn't want his "free" software "stolen"; we don't think
> you can actually "steal" something that is free.
You are playing with words here. And remember, free is free as in free speach
and freedom here (libre in french), and not free as in free beer (gratuit in
french), and you are confusing the two words.
And even if you can't steal free beer (well, maybe you can, if by you get all
the free beer and thus oppose access to it to the other guys entitled to free
beer), you can most certainly stiffle free speach, (or try), as happens in
dictatorial states.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 2:33 AM
in response to: waynel
|
|
>Does not allow WHAT?
Haven't we gone over this like a hundred times?
The GPL does not allow mixing GPL and non-GPL code in a single
binary; since we don't own all OpenSolaris code t****alone makes
using GPL impossible.
Then, of course, Sun gets to pick the license too.
>We may not like GPL, but let's not forget that GPL has the support of the largest and most proacti
ve volunteer developer community in the history of mankind. So who should give it a **** about GPL
. I am sure Sun's engineers can do everything.
Well, for one, we cannot change the GPL and that's where it ends.
That a lot of projects use the GPL proves nothing; many large projects
do not use the GPL. Perhaps that should make people think.
But that's all really moot; why are we not allowed freedom of choice?
Why "GPL or bust"?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 7:35 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:33:14AM +0200, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >Does not allow WHAT?
>
> Haven't we gone over this like a hundred times?
>
> The GPL does not allow mixing GPL and non-GPL code in a single
> binary; since we don't own all OpenSolaris code that alone makes
> using GPL impossible.
More precisely it doesn't allow creating a derivative work out of GPL and non
GPLed pieces. As in the case of the firmware code, where the firmware is in
the same binary, but it consitutes mere agregation, as it is there only for
transport convenience, things are not as easy, and mixing and linking do not
always apply.
Gah, i should maybe reconvert myself into an IP and free-software patent
advisor or lawyer :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 1:08 AM
in response to: Sven Luther
|
|
>Well, remember the system library excpetion, which allowed sun to distribute
>the gcc toolchain in the past, provided it is not on the same CD media as the
>OS itself. This is a bit inconvenient and means you have to distribute gcc and
>stuff from a separate source, but still works just fine for opensolaris.
If there's an issue distributing it on the same media, that would
be news to many of us.
Most commercial OS distributions ship with one or many tools licensed
under the GPL and there was never an issue with that (modulo making
the source code available).
>Whatever is vague with it. You are allowed to link GPL code with system
>libraries, if :
>
> 1) those system libraries are distributed as integral part of the OS.
> 2) the GPLed code is not distributed as integral part of the OS, but
> separatedly.
What does "integral" mean here? Many GPL licensed things are shipped
in the Solaris bundle; but you can "pkgrm" them or not "pkgadd" them so
they're not an "integral" part of the OS.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 12:55 AM
in response to: Nathan Hawkins
|
|
>It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
>Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
>become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
>to everything.
libc is not an issue because GPL allows linking against it.
haveing a GPL'ed libc, however, is a serious problem because it
doesn't allow including non-GPL'ed code. LGPL'ed libc, maybe; but
OpenSolaris libc cannot be put on GPL or LGPL for the same reasons
as the rest.
>Because of the vagueness of the GPL's exception for system libraries,
>it's not exactly obvious under what circumstances (or if) it would be
>legal to distribute a GPL'd program, such as gcc, linked with the CDDL'd
>libc. That's a fairly important problem.
I don't think that's vague at all: you're allowed to link with
bits that are ordinarily part of the system.
>Some people have legitimate interest in both OpenSolaris and GPL
>software. It's a concern to those of us who do that there seems to be
>conflict.
I think Roy is merely pointing out that "OpenSolaris should be under
GPL" discussions and there derivatives ("CDDL is better than GPL",
"GPL is better than CDDL", "GPL is not free", "CDDL is not free")
are pointless and have no place on opensolaris-discuss because the
license situations is not going to change.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Sven Luther
sven.luther@wanadoo.fr
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile.,
what does this mean? (round 3)
Posted:
Sep 7, 2005 1:06 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:55:44AM +0200, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >It would be useful if OpenSolaris' libc were compatible with the GPL.
> >Given that there's no BSD or CDDL replacement for gcc, it's going to
> >become a problem for people who want a distribution that has source code
> >to everything.
>
> libc is not an issue because GPL allows linking against it.
>
> haveing a GPL'ed libc, however, is a serious problem because it
> doesn't allow including non-GPL'ed code. LGPL'ed libc, maybe; but
> OpenSolaris libc cannot be put on GPL or LGPL for the same reasons
> as the rest.
Euh, so all non-GPLed compatible software shipped by Linuxdistros is
problematic ? I believe this is the reason why the glibc is not GPLed but
LGPLed, let me check, ..., indeed the glibc is LGPLed, which change all those
arguments a bit, and the call was for a LGPL compatible CDDL, not a GPL
compatible one, which is a slightly different topic.
There are other libraries, like libparted and libreadline, which are all
FSF/GNU projects too, which are under the stricter GPL.
> >Some people have legitimate interest in both OpenSolaris and GPL
> >software. It's a concern to those of us who do that there seems to be
> >conflict.
>
> I think Roy is merely pointing out that "OpenSolaris should be under
> GPL" discussions and there derivatives ("CDDL is better than GPL",
> "GPL is better than CDDL", "GPL is not free", "CDDL is not free")
> are pointless and have no place on opensolaris-discuss because the
> license situations is not going to change.
Hehe, now replace it with the real thing, namely :
1) OpenSolaris is not LGPL compatible and thus you cannot link OpenSolaris
userland with glibc or other LGPL libraries.
2) The CDDL is possibly considered non-free by Debian because of the choice
of venue clause. And since the debian DFSG was what evolved later in the OSI
guidelines, that indeed carries some weight.
And i believe it would be good for the CDDL to change in this aspect, or at
least be clear about it, instead of indulging in "my licence is better than
yours" kind of discussion :)
(and for all those who don't like licencing discussion, nobody forces you to
read this thread, unless you have a really bad email client :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
| |
