From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HsWN6-0002v4-VO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:58:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4S3uRDB016887; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:56:27 GMT Received: from ender.volumehost.net (adsl-69-154-123-202.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4S3uQ6A016882 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:56:26 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1C61F88C for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:56:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at volumehost.net Received: from ender.volumehost.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ender.volumehost.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RpHGViijqHux for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net (adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4028A1A0CD for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 03:56:23 +0000 (UTC) From: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:56:17 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <5bdc1c8b0705261207q2845c578rdf1d85bd2e4db1d@mail.gmail.com> <20070528024149.4f6d918c@Bazaar> In-Reply-To: <20070528024149.4f6d918c@Bazaar> X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2310234.nlDkVgL0ii"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200705272256.22367.bss03@volumehost.net> X-Archives-Salt: e410f247-116a-4d6f-8033-4b5004a29219 X-Archives-Hash: 54a8e12a24e053be307b490a7e5d33c0 --nextPart2310234.nlDkVgL0ii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 27 May 2007, Isidore Ducasse wrote=20 about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL': > le Sun, 27 May 2007 23:32:49 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> a =E9crit: > > They ARE considering dual-licensing Solaris under GPLv3, however, > > which they've been working closely with the FSF on. Of course that's > > not a given until it's out, but it'd definitely widen the interest > > base (I for one may well be interested, especially if Linux stays > > GPLv2 only). > > You mean the bare kernel, right? Solaris' kernel could be an alternative > to linux? Solaris' kernel *is* an alternative to Linux. It's available under an OSI= =20 license in at least three distributions (including the one from Sun). > Is the latter really different from the *BSD's? =46rom what I understand, yes. They both have the old-skool Unix flavor,=20 that reminds you that GNU really is *not* Unix, but their feature sets and= =20 userland are very different. > it appears to practice monolithic > kernel. IIRC, that's correct about all the *BSDs and Solaris. > What would be different in running a GPLv3 kernel? I've read=20 > about the anti-DRM part of it; is there some other reason you/we could > be interested in it? The anti-DRM stuff has been scaled back quite a bit in the last draft. As= =20 is proper, it no longer prevents the kernel from being part of=20 an "effective content protection mechanism" or otherwise restricting how=20 GPLv3 licensed software is *used*. It does still prevent a distributor=20 from giving you something you could theoretically modify but disallowing=20 the use of modified versions in the same context. (Or, at least it=20 tries.) > BTW isn't there a technical issue licensing a single version of a soft > against two incompatible licenses? No. The QPL is quite incompatible with the GPL and Qt has been=20 dual-licensed for some time under their disjunction. There's very few=20 technical issues involved with licensing at all, anyway. "Is a kernel=20 module a derivative work of the kernel?" and "Does dynamic linking against= =20 (e.g.) readline produce a derivative work of readline?" are /legal/=20 issues, not technical ones. For the record the accepted answers right now= =20 are: "Yes" (per the kernel hackers -- making fglrx and nvidia kernel=20 modules impossible to legally distribute) and "Yes" (per the FSF --=20 although it doesn't matter much since that work is never distributed) > Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2=20 > and GPLv3? =46WIW, these will be incompatible. The additional restrictions the GPLv3= =20 places on distributors w.r.t. DRM are not allowed by strict reading of the= =20 GPLv2 and the GPLv2 doesn't allow additional restrictions to be added. It= =20 is harder to argue that w.r.t. software patents, since the GPLv2 does=20 contain a section the FSF claims is an implicit patent licence. Still, dual-licensing under incompatible licenses is fine and I think many= =20 (but maybe not most) developers that currently license their code under=20 GPLv2 will be willing to license under the GPLv3 as well (or instead). > > Of course Linus and the other kernel devs were originally very much > > against early GPLv3 drafts. > > Is it a matter of diverging positions towards industrial partners/users? The problems Linus' had with early drafts were two-fold: 1) Early drafts has usage restrictions, although the license didn't have to= =20 be accepted to use what was covered. Usage restrictions violate the DFSG=20 and the Free Software Definition. Also, the way the license was worded=20 your usage wasn't restricted until you tried to distribute, which is just=20 odd. 2) Linus had a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal terms involved and= =20 believed strongly that using the GPLv3 would require any distributor make=20 use of PKI to disclose their private keys. In particular, he was under=20 the impression that packages signed with GPG keys (like Debian uses as a=20 security layer) would require they publish the key used for signing. It seems the license has been fixed on both counts. The usage restrictions= =20 have been dropped, and the remaining text concerning DRM has been changed=20 to mean the same thing while being clearer to laypersons. (And clarity to= =20 laypersons is very important; developers are more likely to use a license=20 they can read and understand themselves.) =2D-=20 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,=3D ,-_-. =3D.=20 bss03@volumehost.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'=20 http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ =20 --nextPart2310234.nlDkVgL0ii Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGWlLm55pqL7G1QFkRArPEAJ4hDZuNm8j5W0PaDfLYYXTwIgcp+ACeKgSf kVhq/GRvhv4U/5C5mKUfUow= =E739 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2310234.nlDkVgL0ii-- -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list