[Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Alex Ross-5
Michael Banck wrote:
> Do you plan to use debian-installer for installation?

Yes.

>
> Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once it
> stabilizes?  

Yes.

> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> tracking system for development?

No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.

>
> I suggest you discuss things on this list (if they are technical) or
> debian-project (if they are non-technical).  This will make it much
> easier for you to cooperate with the Debian project, if this is your
> intention.

It is.

The only limiting factor is: the bandwidth. When we make it through the
Pilot and the first release, things will get easier, hopefully.

Thanks!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Matthew Garrett-2
Alex Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
>> tracking system for development?
>
> No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.

It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
be a Solaris-specific issue.

--
Matthew Garrett | [hidden email]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Alex Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Michael Banck wrote:
> >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> >> tracking system for development?
> >
> > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
>
> It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> be a Solaris-specific issue.

on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
re-consider.

on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

Erast


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Matthew Garrett
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
>
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's
likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the
kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not part of the Debian project.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

The different libc is more of a problem than anything else you've
mentioned, but given Sun's claims about wanting almost all Linux code to
build under Solaris, I don't think it's likely to be a big one.

Being part of the Debian project involves accepting certain
responsibilities (such as a willingness to accept Debian policy, to be
part of the release management process and to go through the new
maintainer process if you want to be able to upload stuff directly to
the archive), but means that you have a much larger set of developers
working on your platform and gives you the right to advertise yourself
as part of Debian.

The alternative is to remain a separate Debian-based distribution, which
means that users don't get the same assurances about quality control and
policy as they expect from Debian itself. At the moment, your unique
selling point is basically that you're Solaris except with more useful
software and a better package manager.
--
Matthew Garrett | [hidden email]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG-2
Matthew Garrett <[hidden email]> writes:

> If development is carried out within the Debian project then yes, it's
> likely that the Debian community would work on GNU/Solaris. See the
> kFreeBSD and hurd ports, for instance.

But only with the licensing question sorted out first.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Bernd Eckenfels
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
In article <[hidden email]> you wrote:
> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
similiar.

Gruss
Bernd


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG-2
Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> writes:

> Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
>
>> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
>> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
>
> There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> similiar.

With the distinctive difference that:

The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> >
> >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> >
> > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> > similiar.
>
> With the distinctive difference that:
>
> The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...

FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
"system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.

In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).

Erast


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Matt Palmer-3
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Alex Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > >> tracking system for development?
> > >
> > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> >
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
>
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion).
Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to
get them to the quality level needed for a stable release.  This lack of
interest probably stems from a "Linux is OK for me" viewpoint rather than an
"all these non-Linux ports are useless" opinion -- that is, apathy rather
than malice.

A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all
sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian
architectures cleans things up.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian.  It's a derivative.  The question here isn't
whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which
you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian
itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.

> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.

Yeeeeehah!  As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one
of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level.  Being
not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to
rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in
the embedded space.

- Matt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Joshua Cummings
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> writes:
> >
> > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> > >
> > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> > >
> > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> > > similiar.
> >
> > With the distinctive difference that:
> >
> > The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> > Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...
>
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
> fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
> "system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
> files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.
>
> In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
> like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
> OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).
>
> Erast
>
>

IANAL by any means, and have never had much particular interest in
licensing issues such as these, but after maybe twenty minutes of
"research" it seems the BSD license as we know it today *is* compatible
with the GPL. The advertising clause that the FSF/Stallman/whoever had a
problem with, was removed years ago, and apparently the NetBSD project
is the only one still using a four clause version similar to the
original BSD license. If I'm wrong, please correct me, as this issue
does interest me.

I'm someone who has a big interest in projects such as Debian
GNU/kFreeBSD and have made small contributions along the way. I would've
liked to be able to say the same thing about Debian GNU/Solaris one day.
The techincal side sounds just as exciting, but the community and
marketing side of things is slowly turning me sour.



--
Joshua Cummings


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG-2
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
Erast Benson <[hidden email]> writes:

> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.

You are incorrect.  The BSG license most certainly is GPL-compatible.

> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL).

You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way.  The GPL does
not speak of the "system runtime", and it does not say that those
things don't count.  It says the don't count IF you don't ship the
binary together with them.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson
In reply to this post by Matt Palmer-3
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:50 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:31:00PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Alex Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > > >> tracking system for development?
> > > >
> > > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> > >
> > > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > > be a Solaris-specific issue.
> >
> > on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> > centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> > re-consider.
>
> We do have non-Linux ports in the works (in various states of completion).
> Typically they don't get released because there is insufficient interest to
> get them to the quality level needed for a stable release.  This lack of
> interest probably stems from a "Linux is OK for me" viewpoint rather than an
> "all these non-Linux ports are useless" opinion -- that is, apathy rather
> than malice.

OK. May be I used too strong wording.. One of consideration on why we
decided to go with Debian-technology at first place was the fact that
Debian *is* a "system runtime" independent project. At least it was. But
when we actually start looking into the details, we found it very
GNU/Linux-centric except some absoutely core packages.

> A released Debian/Solaris would, in all likelihood, enhance Debian in all
> sorts of ways, like porting a regular program to 64-bit and big-endian
> architectures cleans things up.

And I believe OpenSolaris community will benefit too.

> > on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> > not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...
>
> It's GNU/Linux, but not Debian.  It's a derivative.  The question here isn't
> whether you want to use some Debian-derived technologies in your port (which
> you're free to do with or without any input or cooperation with Debian
> itself) but whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.

Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.

> > on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
>
> Yeeeeehah!  As I recall, there were plans to produce a non-glibc port of one
> of the BSDs, so there's precedent at some level.  Being
> not-so-glibc-dependent would also benefit projects like the guys trying to
> rebuild Debian for uclibc (or one of the other itty-bitty-libcs) for use in
> the embedded space.

true. there will be a lot of benefits for both communities.

Erast


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Lionel Elie Mamane-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Bushnell, BSG-2
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:27:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Erast Benson <[hidden email]> writes:

>> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of
>> "system runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as
>> per GPL).

> You use these quotation marks in the most amazing way.  The GPL does
> not speak of the "system runtime", and it does not say that those
> things don't count.  It says the don't count IF you don't ship the
> binary together with them.

Which, for full clarity here, this port would be doing (shipping the
GPL-covered binaries together with the GPL-incompatible libc).

--
Lionel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Wouter Verhelst
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:

> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Alex Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Michael Banck wrote:
> > >> If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
> > >> tracking system for development?
> > >
> > > No. We have ours: svn, Trac, and mailing lists.
> >
> > It's unlikely that you'll be accepted as an official Debian port unless
> > you're willing to use the Debian bug tracking system. It's not
> > reasonable to expect Debian maintainers to be willing to copy bugs to a
> > completely different bug tracking system in cases where it turns out to
> > be a Solaris-specific issue.
>
> on another hand, is Debian community willing to be not just GNU/Linux
> centric and put some work on GNU/Solaris too? If yes, we could
> re-consider.

Oh, come on. We already have Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD.
The Solaris thing would hardly be the first non-Linux port.

> on another hand, Ubuntu has its own tracking system, so GNU/Solaris is
> not the first one. Even though Ubuntu is GNU/Linux system...

Ubuntu is not, and does not want to be, a Debian port.

--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Wouter Verhelst-3
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:

> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> writes:
> >
> > > Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
> > >
> > >> on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
> > >> brings many non-Debian-related issues into play.
> > >
> > > There is also hurd or freebsd kernel ports for debian, so those projects are
> > > similiar.
> >
> > With the distinctive difference that:
> >
> > The Hurd port does not use a different libc;
> > Those projects' kernel and library are GPL-compatible...
>
> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.

Go find yourself a cluebat and hit yourself with it.

The BSD license is one of the most permissive licenses ever. It is
totally compatible with the GPL.

--
Wouter Verhelst
NixSys BVBA
Louizastraat 14, 2800 Mechelen
T:+32 15 27 69 50 / F:+32 15 27 60 51 / M:+32 486 836 198


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Josselin Mouette
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :

> FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
> Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of "system
> runtime" which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
> fact, it is even more controversial, since it is not just linking with
> "system runtime" problem anymore, it actually uses kernel's headers
> files, macros, inlines, etc. The same for Darwin port.
>
> In a sense, Nexenta OS is yet another OpenSolaris-based distribution,
> like SchiliX, BeliniX or Solaris when it will be fully based on
> OpenSolaris (as StarOffice today).

I'd like to specifically thank you for this contribution and many
others. You fed me with a serious deal of laughter and gave me a very
good day.
--
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           [hidden email]
`. `'                        [hidden email]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Adrian von Bidder
In reply to this post by Erast Benson
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> Matthew:

> > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
>
> Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.

So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use
the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you
can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things
on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required
web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a
password.

Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and
*then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be
using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing
portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.

I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that
you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of
Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)

-- vbi

--
Every bug you find is the last one.

attachment0 (398 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

David Moreno Garza-2
In reply to this post by Alex Ross-5
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> it
> > stabilizes?  

> Yes.

Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?

Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

Cheers,

--
David Moreno Garza <[hidden email]>   |  http://www.damog.net/
                   <[hidden email]>  |          GPG: C671257D
  Chico Condesa: Pinche fresa mamón.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson
In reply to this post by Adrian von Bidder
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:

> On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Matthew:
>
> > > [...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
> >
> > Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
> > But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.
>
> So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this discussion.  To use
> the lkml attitude: show us the code.  Release your system, show us that you
> can actually work with the Debian community rather than just discuss things
> on a mailing list by pointing out that there is a authorizatrion-required
> web site that contains much more info for those inclined to apply for a
> password.
>
> Debian/Opensolaris should do this: get the code working and published, and
> *then* work with the Debian project to get it integrated.  Since you'll be
> using Debian source packages, this should be mostly doable by filing
> portability patches to the Debian bug tracking system.
>
> I leave the license question to others - I'm not qualified.  I just say that
> you'll have to seriously address this if you want to become a part of
> Debian.  (Saying 'Sun's lawyers did think it's ok' will *not* be enough.)
>
> -- vbi

acked.

Erast


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]

Erast Benson
In reply to this post by David Moreno Garza-2
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> > it
> > > stabilizes?  
>
> > Yes.
>
> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> DFSGs?
>
> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken

World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.

Erast


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

12