OSNews

I think he means that Nexenta OS is trying to beat them by being first with there release.

Although your right. It is unrelated in an OS nature kind of way.

I believe he was referring to the developer preview of the alpha release candidate. Either that or a comparable vowel to consonant ratio. Take your pick.

He's talking about their, uh, naming convention.

I think it's the jpeg compression.

Gamma.

hmm, a Gentoo/OpenSolaris (I assume SolairsTM will be reserved for Sun's releases to distinguish between supported and unsupported distros) would then be legal like Linux binary kernel-modules. That said I hope the GPL focus don't start a big fuss over this since CDDL is just another OSI approved license. As for asking for dkpg... well they'd probably sleep better having it but it's not obvious they need it.

As for compiling against == derived, well thats a like a bit of a stretch and it doesn't seem like something that could be decisively decided without a length and expensive legal battle which I can't see how that would be productive considering they are both OSS projects, it's not Sun doing it, and there are more important fights.

steal the installer? if it's oss why would they need to steal it?

"a Gentoo/OpenSolaris (I assume SolairsTM will be reserved for Sun's releases to distinguish between supported and unsupported distros) would then be legal like Linux binary kernel-modules."

No, the exact same murky legal issues exist with regards to binary kernel modules, as well. See for example LWN's quote of the week (http://lwn.net/Articles/157225/), the words of kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman:

--
Oh, and at least one major distro has been served with legal papers due to them shipping closed source kernel drivers, and more are on the way. That's the direction some developers are taking.
--

"As for asking for dkpg... well they'd probably sleep better having it but it's not obvious they need it."

They want to base their project on Debian and Ubuntu, and hence they need DPKG. Obviously they feel that Debian's packaging technology is superior to that of Gentoo.

"As for compiling against == derived, well thats a like a bit of a stretch and it doesn't seem like something that could be decisively decided without a length and expensive legal battle which I can't see how that would be productive considering they are both OSS projects, it's not Sun doing it, and there are more important fights."

No link since it's too recent to have been publicly archived, but one of the most recent posts to debian-devel consisted of the Nexenta developer Alex Ross providing evidence of Sun doing the exact same thing wrt to mixing GPL-ed and CDDL-ed code, and asking "are you going to pursue a legal action against Sun Microsystems?" To which the Debian developer Matthew Garrett responded ""yes". I'm not sure how that's supposed to excuse you in any way."

"steal the installer? if it's oss why would they need to steal it?"

Because Open Source != Public Domain. You still have to abide by the terms of the license if you want to make use of the work. I already elaborated on how Nexenta are in violation of the license terms in my last post. And, as I pointed out, Nexenta must *know* they are as well or they wouldn't have bothered to ask Debian to relicense DPKG in the first place. Their only means ofs justifying their current actions seems to be "Sun's getting away with it, so we can too" which doesn't seem all that watertight (or moral, given that the Debian developers made their opinions fairly clear) to me.

The CDDL is not GPL compatible. Like the OpenSSL library, CDDL licensed code cannot be linked together with GPL licensed code.

Therefore distributing any GPL software linked together with OpenSolaris' libc is a big no-no.

See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL

Ok, one thing is putting gpl applications to run on a non-gpl compatible kernel and another diferent thing is to link gpl libraries with non gpl applications. If you couldn't use gpl apps on a non-gpl kernel then we wouldn't se any gnu apps on Darwin/MacOSX or even Windows

And IIRC these have bee ported to the two OSes mentioned above.

"Ok, one thing is putting gpl applications to run on a non-gpl compatible kernel and another diferent thing is to link gpl libraries with non gpl applications. If you couldn't use gpl apps on a non-gpl kernel then we wouldn't se any gnu apps on Darwin/MacOSX or even Windows"

You've missed the point. Once again, the crucial clause in the GPL reads as follows:

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

The problem is that Nexenta are distributing the GPL-ed applications, and the CDDL-ed libc those applications are linked against, *together*. Thus, the above exception simply does not apply to them, however much they might claim that it does.

If the GPL-ed components were distributed separately from the CDDL-ed base system, there would be no problem. But of course, were they to do that it wouldn't be possible to integrate DPKG and debian-installer into the base system... Thus, they chose to deliberately disregard the license terms and go ahead and incorporate DPKG et al illegally.

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
-------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that Nexenta are distributing the GPL-ed applications, and the CDDL-ed libc those applications are linked against, *together*. Thus, the above exception simply does not apply to them, however much they might claim that it does.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean that they're linked against each other?
Or do you mean that they're linked together with the CDDL LibC?

And IMO, if the CDDL is also another free-software license there should be no problem. And besides, the problem with these licences (if i read them correctly) is that they're to similar(in terms of relicensing)

"Do you mean that they're linked against each other?
Or do you mean that they're linked together with the CDDL LibC?"

The GPL-ed applications are linked against the CDDL-ed libc, and the libc and applications are then being distributed together.

"And IMO, if the CDDL is also another free-software license there should be no problem."

That's not the way it works. Not all licenses are compatible with each other. For instance, the four-clause BSD license (the one with the "advertising clause") is incompatible with the GPL because the GPL stipulates that no additional restrictions may be placed upon the work on top of the requirements specified within the terms of the GPL. Mandatory advertising within documentation would be just such an additional restriction and hence the two licenses are incompatible.

"And besides, the problem with these licences (if i read them correctly) is that they're to similar(in terms of relicensing)"

No, that isn't the problem. The problem is similar to that which I outlined above with regards to the 4-clause BSD license. The GPL and CDDL have different requirements, and it isn't possible to simultaneously satisfy the terms of both licenses at the same time for any given codebase. Which is what you'd have to be able to do in order to legally distribute anything that's a derived work of both GPL-ed and CDDL-ed code. *Unless* you can invoke the

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

portion of the GPL, which Nexenta cannot take advantage of because in their case the CDDL-ed components (the libc etc) *are* accompanying the GPL-ed executables (such as DPKG).

Hopefully that makes things somewhat clearer. :-)

Syntaxis,

Since you know a lot about the License, can you explain to me why "OpenSolaris" can use GCC instead of Sun Studio to build "OpenSolaris" from Solaris Express?

GCC is GPL so what does that mean?

While your at it, please explain

BeleniX & SchilliX, I believe both contain CDDL and GNU/GPL'd software.

THanks,

It's a shame that disagreements always end up with a few histrionic people freaking out and name calling. I would like to know who is really behind Nexenta. Is this an actual company? Who is putting up the money?

"It's a shame that disagreements always end up with a few histrionic people freaking out and name calling."

Assuming you are referring to me:

Liars:

They promised to create a CDDL-compatible reimplementation of DPKG to resolve the licensing concerns raised by the Debian developers, and failed to carry out on that promise. They lied.

Thieves:

They then incorporated the GPL-ed DPKG in contravention of the license terms, despite having been explicitly told that it would be illegal for them to do so. That is theft, plain and simple.

That isn't mudslinging. I believe the labels are accurate and entirely justified in light of their actions. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to state your case, together with the evidence to support it.

Unless you know the situation first hand and know these people personally, you're jumping to conclusions and judging by your abbrasive tone, seems to be based motly on stray emotions.... I really can't stand people like you.


Assuming you are referring to me: (I'm sure he/she was)

Liars:

*** They promised to create a CDDL-compatible reimplementation of DPKG to resolve the licensing concerns raised by the Debian developers, and failed to carry out on that promise. They lied.

A lie must also stem with an *intent* to decive, or distort truth. It is entirely plausible that these people simply have not completed the work yet. Do you know first hand as a FACT that these people simply will not deliver on that promise, or are you simply applying your time frame to this and jumping to conclusions and falsely accusing these people of being liars?


Thieves:

*** They then incorporated the GPL-ed DPKG in contravention of the license terms, despite having been explicitly told that it would be illegal for them to do so. That is theft, plain and simple.

Are you personally aware of any conversations that took place between them and the Debian folks, or are you speculating this? If you are speculating, then you *thieve* statement of fact, is really an assumption. Which of course would make you quite an ass if your opinion would turn out to be false.


*** That isn't mudslinging. I believe the labels are accurate and entirely justified in light of their actions. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to state your case, together with the evidence to support it.


Seems to me it is in fact mudsligning and self agrandizment based on pure speculation.

"Are you personally aware of any conversations that took place between them and the Debian folks, or are you speculating this?"

As I already mentioned, the conversations in question took place in public on the debian-devel mailing list. I've already provided a link to at least one post in the thread, the start of which can be found at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00051.html - feel free to read the thread in its entirety for yourself.

"Seems to me it is in fact mudsligning and self agrandizment based on pure speculation."

Only to one who hasn't bothered to read the thread...

It's such a joy to watch the perpetual internal strife of the people frequenting these forums. I wonder when some of the "fiery" individuals around will step up and propose possible solutions to the problems "discussed", like some of the more constructive minds tend to do; solutions to license incompatibility in this case.

It seems to me that bickering is a more acceptable passtime, or perhaps it is just the tone one can expect from people entrenched in the IT-business, except, of course, if one is a paying customer with an agenda outside of the IT-business, in which case one does not wish to spend ones time on returning the mud slung.

Is this really the case? Or is it because you care so much about your operating systems and their licenses that you would rather be a minority of enemies than a constructive communitive? I, for one, do not recognize the community spirit you're supposed to represent. That is far more prevalent amongst the many people of those "other communities" I consult, loving their Macs and Wintels.

I wonder whether you would use the same language if you were looking each other in the eyes. Maybe you would. That would make you about equal to the rabble I meet on their way to the local soccer game, drunk and loud-mouthed, full of confidence with little else on their minds but brawls and constant bickering.

Thieves? Liars? Whoever you are, those are harsh words you use and obviously haven't bothered to look up the definition of:

"Lie":

- tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive

(wordreference.com)

1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression

(dictionary.com)


"Thief":

- a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping or stealing it

(wordreference.com)

One who steals, especially by stealth

(dictionary.com)

Neither of which can be said of people who take something (the property of whom is disputable, as this discussion proves) but do not intend to keep it and do this in the open, nor can be proven to have told an untruth or intend to deceive (again shown by the very discussion you are engaging in - it is not closed matter nor a logically decidable fact).

This is not to say that I personally think what they did is necessarily right, but I fail to see how bickering back and forth about it, not to mention calling people names helps either party, of which none of you are apparantly a member.

So easy to sling the mud at people you never have to meet in person, isn't it? Fortunately they are busy coding while you are busy bickering.

"Neither of which can be said of people who take something (the property of whom is disputable, as this discussion proves)"

DPKG is the property of its copyright holders. That is indisputable. I already linked to a public statement of one of the copyright holders, Adam Heath (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00258.html) in one of my earlier posts. From that post, its context and his other contributions to the thread, I think it's plain to see that he considers Nexenta's use of his copyrighted material to be illegal. Such illegal misappropriation of his intellectual property can, IMO, legitimately be referred to as theft.

"but do not intend to keep it"

Really? Nexenta intend to stop using DPKG? Marvellous!

"and do this in the open, nor can be proven to have told an untruth or intend to deceive"

Let's quote from a post by Nexenta developer Erast Benson (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00202.html):

"Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed on Nexenta Companion CD, if user wants to."

There you have it. Categorical proof direct from the horse's mouth that Nexenta promised that the main ISO would be GPL-free. But, since they included the GPL-ed DPKG, they obviously went ahead and broke that promise. Hence, I once again reiterate that it is completely justified to refer to them as liars.

And, as I've already pointed out, they also claimed that they would reimplement DPKG in a CDDL-compatible license since incorporating the original GPL-ed version would be in violation of the GPL. But obviously that was too much work, so they just nicked the original instead.

"I fail to see how bickering back and forth about it, not to mention calling people names helps either party"

Again, it isn't name-calling when the use of the terms are justified by the actions of the accused party. You also completely miss the point of my argumentation. I simply believe that the community at large have the right to know what dastardly characters the Nexenta developers are. I want as many people to be aware of their immoral actions as possible.

"of which none of you are apparantly a member."

Check your facts. At least Dalibor Topic is an active member of the Debian community, and I've also made (admittedly rather minor, compared to him) contributions.

I'd avoid getting into meta-bickering, myself.

On a side note, I am not a debian developer, although I do some work together with Debian developers and other volunteers in the debian-java part of the project.

cheers,
dalibor topic

DPKG is the property of its copyright holders. That is indisputable.

Since we are talking about the GPL here I think it would be appropriate to quote the FSF [1] here:
One effect of the term is a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, these companies have worked to make the term fashionable.

and might I remind you that the whole rationale behind the GPL is to circumvent and overthrow copyright. [2]
My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.

So not only it is wrong in a legal sense to claim copyright as "proerty" but especially in a case where we are talking about the GPL it is down right dangerous.

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html

Your quote actually states that making a separate CD with the GPL-ed code was their INTENTION, not that they promised to do so.

Immoral actions? Another strong statement. Is it immoral to use code that someone else wrote and published under a public ownership license like the GPL? Isn't the very reason that Linus chose the GPL for Linux that he wished to relinquish control of the OS? (Although I do think he should have used the BSD-license - see below). Isn't the whole point of the GPL that people should have the freedom to use the code for their own benefit, as long as they don't keep others from doing the same - with the added "benefit" of forcing others to publish their work under the same license?

It seems to me that, in this discussion, that freedom is now not as important as the "owners'" rights to revoke that basic freedom. Protecting the right of the authors of the code - their right to dictate who uses it and who doesn't - is what is the most iterated topic here.

Have Nexenta kept code from you or other people? Is the CDDL viral? Will what Nexenta did change the licenses of the DPKG-code into CDDL? Please enlighten me, and once you have - as an aside, try looking at the BSD license, which complies with what I understand as true freedom: The freedom to do whatever you like with whatever somebody ACTUALLY gives away. Anything else is less, and - to my mind - a result of people pointing moral fingers the way kids do at kindergarden.

Again, what other people do with something once I ACTUALLY relinquish control (as do the BSD-licensing coders) is non of my business, which is exactly what freedom is about: Other people's lives are theirs to live, not mine.

But maybe, by stating these views, I just fuled another endless discussion on the same tiring subjects.

The indesputable fact remains, some people of the open source community in the OSNews forums spend more time discussing the details of IP than I hear within corporate environments, but maybe that's because I live outside of the States (I'm a Dane). Or maybe it's because by introducing the many complicated and certainly restrictive licenses of "freedom", the open source community - as well as the Free Softare Movement - have created their own license hell to deal with.

I, for one, wish to license this comment under the LPBL - the Less Puclic Bickering License, to, hopefully, guard it against too much flaming.

-Mike

Afaict from reading the threads on the debian-devel list, a few possible solutions have been proposed:

a) Nexenta could relicense Sun's code, if they obtain the copyrights form Sun, or a license to do so

b) Nexenta could ask Sun to change the CDDL

c) Nexenta could ask Sun to relicense the libc alone

d) Nexenta could ask Debian developers to relicense their tools

e) Nexenta could port glibc to OpenSolaris

f) Nexenta could rewrite dpkg and other debian tools under a license of their choice

g) Nexenta could stop redistributing works from Debian they do not have the consent of copyright holders for

cheers,
dalibor topic

They then incorporated the GPL-ed DPKG in contravention of the license terms, despite having been explicitly told that it would be illegal for them to do so. That is theft, plain and simple.

Copyright infringement is not theft. It's, uhm, copyright infringement. Whats next, are you going to call them pirates and bloody murderers?

Microsoft?

cheers,
dalibor topic

Post removed (I should learn to read, lol)

Edited 2005-11-08 02:46

"First of all, the trademark issue: In choosing to name their product "GNU/Solaris" they're using "Solaris", a Sun trademark, in a way that is in contravention of Sun's trademark policy (http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/). Given that trademark law *requires* trademark holders to aggressively police use of their mark or risk losing it altogether, I think we can expect a response from Sun's lawyers pretty soon."

Actually I do not beleive their is anything wrong with this name other than they might need to add a trademark legend after Solaris? In this case Solaris is being used as an adjective to describe what the kernel is. Using the phrase "GNU/Solaris" implies saying "the GNU system running on top of the Solaris operating system kernel". If anything, they should change their name because the name of the kernel technically is SunOS and not Solaris. Not to mention, not only is my post technically in violation of their trademark, there are many other posts that are as well. I guess they will be coming after me too...

Nexenta is a company making an operating system. Sun is a company making an operating system. Both are marketed as Solaris.

$insert obligatory highlander music

cheers,
dalibor topic

Nextenta is marketing Nexenta OS. They are using the word Solaris to describe the kernel.

All this thread about some developers being thieves and liars made me a bit depressed (like to many others, I guess). The project looks interesting, and those developers have probably put a lot of work to give this OS for free, as Debian and Ubuntu do. Shouldn't they be brothers beyond the words of licenses they use?

Can't a license be overridden by the owner's permission? In that case, couldn't Nexenta developers could just ask Debian developers "Hey, we'd like to use dpkg, but there seems to be a conceptual problem with the license. Can we use it anyway?" And Debian developers should have answered: "Sure, no problem".

Is it so difficult?

Can't a license be overridden by the owner's permission?

Of course it can.

In that case, couldn't Nexenta developers could just ask Debian developers "Hey, we'd like to use dpkg, but there seems to be a conceptual problem with the license. Can we use it anyway?"

That's exactly what happened. They asked to debian-devel mailing list.

And Debian developers should have answered: "Sure, no problem".

No. Debian developers, specifically some of dpkg authors, firmly said, "No". Syntaxis already mentioned it:

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12569&comment_id=57597
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg00258.html

It doesn't seem to be a consensus though. Nexenta developers are more than free to ask 24 authors listed in dpkg copyright, to get relicensing when possible, and to rewrite parts that authors didn't relicense.

"No. Debian developers, specifically some of dpkg authors, firmly said, "No". Syntaxis already mentioned it"

But in that thread they're asking to relicense dpkg, which I understand the authours don't want to do. But did they just ask permission to USE it (without changing the license)? I don't see why Debian devs would have say no to that.

Anyway, it's a sad thing. I hope it's solved in the right way.

This thread is fun ;-)


But in that thread they're asking to relicense dpkg, which I understand the authours don't want to do. But did they just ask permission to USE it (without changing the license)? I don't see why Debian devs would have say no to that.

There is no law that requires a work to be licensed by one and only one license. Dpkg is availible to everyone under the terms of the GPL. To grant permission to USE it, as you say, is by definition to license it. So if the nexenta developers would be granted permission to use the software in non GPL-compatible ways, they would by definition be granted a license to do so.

If that be the case, then do explain GAIM, OpenOffice, Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird, MySQL Community Edition and other OSS for Windows that is at least dual-licensed under the GPL. I guess for some reason in your mind it's ok for a GPL'd program to be released for Windows, but not Solaris. Do you even **have** the source for Windows, let alone a right to look at it?

I guess the big difference is that in the cases you mention it is the copyright holders that distribute the software.

Not sure yet, installing it now, but I would say yes to dtrace and smf, just not zones.

OpenSolaris can't use zones at the moment

http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/releasenotes-20051103.txt


9. Zones are not usable on OpenSolaris, due to missing package
support and tools.

Yes the Solaris Operating System is UNIX, this as far as I can tell just uses the Solaris Kernel and GNU and knowing that GNU is not unix, that means that this is not UNIX...

The same rules applies to GNU/Linux, the Linux Kernel is POSIX Compliant, so it could be made into a UNIX if the rest of the operating system could be classed as UNIX.

The GNOME Office people appear to think otherwise:

http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/

It does not work that way. The GPL is not the magic wand of relicensing. Only the author of a chunk of code can legally relicense.

cheers,
dalibor topic

I do realize that. I'm more or less explaining in terms of what would happen if it was and wasn't like that. That is, if said author decides to write code that combines or links with GPL code into his own, then the author is obligated to release his finished product under the GPL. But if the author has existing GPL code that he wrote, and decides to link it with another developer's non-GPL code, GPL does not apply to the non-GPL code because the usage direction is such that: GPLfunc() calls special_func() in libnongpl.so

No you don't. If said author decides to write code that combines or links with GPL code into his own, then the author can legaly distribute the result if he complies with the GPL meaning, in part, that the parts of the code that is his must be availble under the GPL to those he distribute to. But if the author has existing GPL code that he wrote, and decides to link it with another developer's non-GPL code, he would have to have a license from the other author to be able to do so legally. He would also not be able to license the whole work as GPL without permisson from
the other author.

He's making fun of the crazy naming scheme of pre release versions. SkyOS has Beta 8.6 Alpha 2 and Nexenta OS has Pre-Alpha 1. This is my interpretation and I could be wrong though. Now if you'll excuse me, i'm off to work On Uber1337 OS Beta 5 Alpha 4 Beta 1 Alpha 5...

Where's the disagreement?
That he is not obligated to GPL his code. If he does not comply with the terms of the GPL license the license is simply null and void, which means that the case reduces to simple copyright infringement. He can thus choose to a)cease distributing or b) keep distributing illegally.


Anyways, my whole point is this:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH GPL APPS LINKING TO CDDL LIBS because the CDDL allows it! The CDDL is less restrictive in that regards; the other way around is not true meaning that a it is wrong for CDDL apps to link with GPL libs because of the viral of the GPL license.
The confusion here is about who is copyright holder and who is licenser or licensee. In this case the copyright holder of some code whishes to create a "Larger Work" (as defined in the CDDL) with his code and some other code under the terms of the CDDL. Whether he makes his own code availible under the GPL or not has absolutley nothing to do with anything in this case. So yes the CDDL allows "Larger Works", quote: You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software.

If he did not have copyright for the code and could only license it under the terms of the GPL (as is the case with dpkg and Nexenta, and which you imply when you say GPL APPS LINKING TO) he would have no legal way to distribute a "Larger Work" as the GPL requires that the whole work also be licensed under the GPL while the CDDL requires that Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License.