Nexenta OS celebrates its first alpha release today. Their first alpha, dubbed ‘elatte’, features OpenSolaris kernel build #27 (non-debug, with ZFS), Xorg 6.8.2-77, more network drivers, bug fixes, and more. Download it here.
Nexenta OS celebrates its first alpha release today. Their first alpha, dubbed ‘elatte’, features OpenSolaris kernel build #27 (non-debug, with ZFS), Xorg 6.8.2-77, more network drivers, bug fixes, and more. Download it here.
….this is yet another OpenSolaris distribution? I have not heard of this one! I knew of Belanix, and then there is the LiveCD one (forgot the name of the engineer that supports it) and then there is the debian/OpenSolaris.
This Nexanta should be the 4th OpenSolaris distribution. Is there any other that I don’t know of?
The one you’re thinking of is SchilliX, which is run by Jörg Schilling of cdrecord fame.
Edited 2005-11-21 14:31
Thank you, yes, it is SchilliX!
This *is* Debian/OpenSolaris.
Did they get all the license issues out of the way with Debian Devel’s?
I read most of the debian lists daily, and all I can tell is that the Nexenta guys – however well-or not-intentional they mught be – did not yet succeed in convincing me about their point regarding the cddl/gpl issue. They seem to have a fairly comfortable point of view, which is not just deliberately wrong, but also largely (c) and licence infringing. For me, however nice the idea of a Debian-powered OpenSolaris clone sounds, the whole thing is a complete no go until they don’t seem to be get that it’s not the Debian developers who should change their ways because of Nexenta, it’s the other way around. They are who picked to use Debian tools and software, they should follow the Debian licences and philosophy too. Every now and then when reading their mails I get the feeling of someone talking down from up above a giant horseback.
Very right!
Not only should the Nexenta devs get the license violation right but also the Sun devs (or rather the lawyers),too.
OpenSolaris will not make it into the Free Software world if this CDDL/GPL thing will not be resolved.
And, again, it is NOT resolved, yet, regardless what any zealot will say now.
The Debian people should build some barriers against Nexenta NOW!!!
I have spoken!
“They are who picked to use Debian tools and software, they should follow the Debian licences”
But Debian is about running the same kind of system on whatever kernel, and the GPL sucks, so it depends on how you look at it
“They are who picked to use Debian tools and software, they should follow the Debian licences”
But Debian is about running the same kind of system on whatever kernel, and the GPL sucks, so it depends on how you look at it
But without the GPL, Debian wouldn’t exist would it? And without Debian, this distro wouldn’t exist would it?
Sorry for introducing you to logic at this stage in your life – you’ve clearly managed to avoid it upto now.
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=495&slide=5…
Seriously, why is it permissible to use GPL software with Windows if Solaris is not allowed?
The GPL has a special exemption for system software:
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.
This exemption has allowed the distribution of, for example, binaries of GPL applications for Solaris for many years. The Debian developers that this situation is different, however: since the libraries and the GPL applications are all part of the Nexenta distribution, the CDDL-licensed libc does, indeed, accompany the executable, and the exemption does not apply.
For an in-depth look at this, this article is pretty good: http://lwn.net/Articles/159248/
The GPL normally doesn’t permit linking with non-GPL libraries. However, there is an exception, which allows linking iff:
1. The libraries are “system libraries”.
2. The GPL software isn’t shipped together with the system.
So, it’s OK to install and run Emacs on Solaris or Windows, since Emacs is distributed seperate from the system. Also, it’s OK to distribute Emacs and Sun’s JRE on the same cd (since Emacs isn’t linked with the JRE).
Nexenta should either get Sun to (L)GPL their C library, or use glibc instead.
I would have thought that rather than changing to glibc, it should merely be necessary to provide version of apt-get (and any GPL dependencies) that is compiled with glibc (or a further glibc-compatible library: I don’t know if dietlibc or muclibc would work) and then provide the packages on a separate disk. Or use a BSD libc for the bootstrap.
It all seems rather silly to me, anyhow, if you can make something OK based on which CD it comes on. Even then, maybe that’s ‘distributed with’. Perhaps they should go in separate envelopes if you buy them from a duplicator. Doh!
Because Windows isn’t distributed with components linking to a GPL’ed binary. Nexenta is (the Debian tools).
The problem I have with OpenSolaris is that the CDDL was written to basically use GPL software but not contribute to it. Nobody would be interested in OpenSolaris if it wasn’t for things like Gnome/KDE, Samba, and the dozens of other GPLed software that the CDDL will not allow contribution too. OpenSolaris wants to leach off the success of free software without giving anything back…
brockers
“Nobody would be interested in OpenSolaris if it wasn’t for things like Gnome/KDE, Samba, and the dozens of other GPLed software”
Wrong. Of course the GPL software adds value, as on any platform, proprietary or not. However, Solaris features like: the new network stack, ZFS, zones, SMF, RBAC, dTrace, mature 64-bit support, etc. are great reasons to use Solaris.
Novelty, previous Solaris experience, it is not Linux, the Linux development leaves a distaste in their mouths… there are plenty of reasons.
Frankly the gp’s argument is flawed since you could say the same thing about any of the BSDs… and you’d be just as wrong.
OpenSolaris are free to, I haven’t read the CDDL but isn’t it really the stupid viral terms of GPL which ruins it and not CDDL?
> OpenSolaris are free to, I haven’t read the CDDL but isn’t it really the stupid viral terms of GPL which ruins it and not CDDL?
Yes. GPL causes this mess as some interpret it so that you need to release libc under gpl and not under anything else.
i want it on my sun hardware is it possible?
I don’t get all this hatred towards the CDDL. It is in fact a license not much different from the GPL. The fact that it is not compatible with the GPL has a “duh!” effect on me– no license is compatible with the GPL.
Yes, indeed. No license is compatible with the GPL.
As long as *any* project combining GPL code with XYZ code *must* be GPL, the GPL is not compatible with license XYZ. As far as I’m concerned, licenses are only compatible when the developer of a project combining GPL/XYZ code can choose either of the two for his end product.
Until that moment, the GPL is not compatible with any other license. The same basically goes for the CDDL, so what’s the big deal here?
As long as *any* project combining GPL code with XYZ code *must* be GPL, the GPL is not compatible with license XYZ. As far as I’m concerned, licenses are only compatible when the developer of a project combining GPL/XYZ code can choose either of the two for his end product.
So until the author doesn’t complain it is ok to break the copyright law?
Strange thinking and here’s few additional pointers for you
1. Why did the original author included license in the first place then? To declare valid usage to possible users. So they would know what is riht and what wrong
2. Do you even know how many project original author would need to inspect if they respect license? People don’t have time for that, inspecting every project would be very tiresome
3. FOSS should be based on trust, not on “everybody is its own police”. Giving something free should not pose more troubles than not giving
Until that moment, the GPL is not compatible with any other license. The same basically goes for the CDDL, so what’s the big deal here?
Big deal here is that there is far more GPL than CDDL licensed software. GPL can’t benefit a single point (even if licenses would be compatible, number of CDDL projects is too small to be significant), while CDDL software is almost worthless until completed with GPL. In short, CDDL is taking a small zillion of benefits from GPL while in the same moments it doesn’t want to share all those 3 benefits it could provide.
Big deal here is that there is far more GPL than CDDL licensed software. GPL can’t benefit a single point (even if licenses would be compatible, number of CDDL projects is too small to be significant), while CDDL software is almost worthless until completed with GPL. In short, CDDL is taking a small zillion of benefits from GPL while in the same moments it doesn’t want to share all those 3 benefits it could provide.
Actually, that is completely the opposite. It is the CDDL/BSD/MPL/MIT/etc. projects that cannot benifit. Why? because if I have some CDDL/BSD/MPL/MIT/etc. application, I cannot combine any GPL code into my application, nor link with any GPL library lest I forgo my non-GPL license of choice. Period
It is truely ironic that people think that because for example, you can legally take a BSD driver, combine it with GPL code and use it in a GPL kernel i.e. linux. But it is NOT legal to take a GPL driver and stick it in a BSD kernel because then the whole kernel would have to be GPL’d.
your silly, you tend to forget that the cddl is pro-business while gpl forces the code to be open, which some view as anti-business (WE CANT FULLY LIVE OFF OF AD SUPPORT AND SUPPORT SERVICSE) as a good system should be so easy to run that the support services is not needed… (middle school kids doing windows support.??)
now, if you had software that was worth millions of dollars and you had a chance to 1) get contributions but able to keep closed and make more millions or 2) open it to the gpl and forever loose it and fail in support services.
One does not have to be too retarded to understand this and you can be biased all you want toward the GPL–its just a restrictive paper–more so than the CDDL and no, gpl software does not make up solaris kernel so why should it be forced to be gpl’d so it can be scared with the rest of the gpl world? stupid, stupid, stupid
WE CANT FULLY LIVE OFF OF AD SUPPORT AND SUPPORT SERVICSE
Those are not the only options to make mony on GPL software.
I think the biggest money comes from using GPL software to develop custom sollutions.
If you intend to develop and license a platform you can dual license as MySQL does.
If you intend to develop end-user software you shouldn’t own it in the first place. Licenses won’t give you the big bucks. High competense and knowledge of your customers needs will.
“If you intend to develop end-user software you shouldn’t own it in the first place. Licenses won’t give you the big bucks. High competense and knowledge of your customers needs will.”
I think the billions that microsoft has made off of office proves you wrong. I wish office was open source, but saying that microsoft wold have made just as much money off an open source version of office flies in the face of common sense.
we’ll see, we’ll see… 😉
That’s a rather pointless definition of compatibility, as most freee software (and open source) licenses do not allow you to relicense a code base containing code both under A and B licenses to either A or B.
cheers,
dalibor topic
their pre-alpha only had like 1900xsomething and this release only does 640×480 (in vmware)
is there a boot param to fix this?
try editing your X11 config file maybe
I sent in a ticket to them and got this solution:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/83
add the following lines in Monitor section of /etc/X11/xorg.conf:
HorizSync 28.0 – 105.0
VertRefresh 43.0 – 72.0
Fact is:
NOT OK: non-gpl binary links with gpl library (i.e. non-gpl binary uses gpl library)
OK: gpl binary links with non-gpl library (i.e. gpl binary uses gpl library)
If what people are complaining about is true, then no non-gpl OS today would be able to ship with gpl applications. BSD wouldn’t have any userland gpl apps and Solaris wouldn’t be allowed to ship with GNOME/JDS for example, since they all link with non-gpl libs.
(and BrianFeeny, that statement only talks about how to comply with the GPL i.e. how to distribute the source, but that’s *AFTER* determining what is affected)
GPL trolls give it a rest: it passes with the Debian founder for pete’s sake. http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278
In terms of the actual issue being discussed here, am I the only one who doesn’t get it? It seems to me the argument that linking a GPL application to a CDDL library and asserting that that somehow makes the library a derivative work of the application is, to say the least, a stretch—not to mention the fact that we’re talking about libc here, a library with a highly standard interface that’s been implemented any number of times and, heck, that’s even older than the GPL itself.
Frankly, I think this comment sums up my feelings too.
And, so, I’m more than a little embarrassed at how certain members of the Debian community reacted to Nexenta’s work.
Good work zealots… you are starting to embarass and alienate our own! High-five.
What happened to the edit button?!!?
*sigh* I wanted to add this to the very bottom of the previous post which is another quote.
I’ve been a big GPL advocate for a long time, but that just strikes me as wrong.
Copyright law is copyright law. If you break the terms of the license, you are a pirate (copyright infringer). It doesn’t make one iota of difference if the software is FOSS or not. Linking is linking.
So it is ok to break the GPL, but it is not ok to break the CDDL. Talk about hypocrisy here.
Nexenta should get of their arses and write cleanroom implementations of the GPL software they are linking. They should take the OpenBSD guys as an example. They put in the sweat to keep their systems under the license they prefer by rewriting software from scratch.
GPL says all deritvatives must be GPL. So anything you build on top of the GPL must be GPL. The kernel is below libc, and libc is below userland apps. Thus I really don’t see where there is any derivative work.
Also its hard to argue something is a derivative work when it was defined before the GPL work.
See also Ian’s comments about derivation.
This is not about breaking copyright, but recognizing that the GPL doesn’t apply here. If you link to GPL you must be GPL. if the GPL links to you then that doesn’t matter.
If however if what you insist is what the GPL then we have full right to club RMS to death in streets for crapping up everything up.
Thank you, CaptainPinko — you’re spot-on. It’s ironic to me that for all of the rhetoric of freedom, GPL zealots insist on claiming rights not reserved for the copyright holder. If you write a book, you have no right to the book that I place next to it on the bookshelf — you can’t mandate that I place the book you wrote only next to books that are written by you or your friends. Similarly, if you write an application, you have no right to work that is in no way derived work. The much ballyhooed “special exception” doesn’t — and can’t — apply to something that isn’t a part of the Program to begin with; it doesn’t apply to libc because libc is not a derived work of the Program. But hey, don’t take my word for it: talk to a lawyer, any lawyer. You might also want to ask them what a “demurrer” is, because that’s exactly how far the legal proceedings would get in this case…
the authors of dpkg (or any other GPLd or CDDLd tool) can put specific restrictions on derivative works created from their work, and in fact both the GPL and the CDDL do. There is nothing wrong with that.
You seem to miss the point: the GPL only puts restrictions on the binary created from dpkg sources. To distribute that binary, Nexenta needs to meet the conditions outlined in the GPL. If they don’t (or can’t) meet the conditions, they have no right to redistribute *the binary*. That’s all the GPL cares about.
In other words, nice strawman bashing here
cheers,
dalibor topic
“It seems to me the argument that linking a GPL application to a CDDL library and asserting that that somehow makes the library a derivative work of the application is, to say the least, a stretch—not to mention the fact that we’re talking about libc here,”
Hmm. doesnt that in fact make the GPL application derivative of the system libc? I’m pretty sure that’s the argument I’ve heard before in regards to the GPL. If linking an app to a GPL’d library constitutes derivative work linking a GPL app to a CCDL library also makes the GPL app derivative of the CCDL library.
Are there exceptions for drivers? I seem to remember Be Inc. having to remove their 3com 509B driver because it was based on a GPL driver.
Shutup you pigs
As important as all the legalities might be to some people, I don’t understand enough about the nuances of the licenses of binaries linked with libraries for it to matter to me. From the user point of view, I think combining the benefits of OpenSolars with the benefits of Debian is a great idea. Since Nexenta is FOSS, what’s the big deal?
As important as all the legalities might be to some people, I don’t understand enough about the nuances of the licenses of binaries linked with libraries for it to matter to me. From the user point of view, I think combining the benefits of OpenSolars with the benefits of Debian is a great idea. Since Nexenta is FOSS, what’s the big deal?
Open source relies on the strength of copyright law. If people are breaking it at their whims, why the hell do we have to put up with licenses? Why not just screw everyone else?
The fact is Nexenta is breaking the intent of copyright law with what they’re doing. They could’ve just made a clean-room implementation of dpkg/apt without dabbling in GPL code and resulting in this mess. But no! They deliberately chose to break the license.
What I never understood was why the hell that Linux supporters would think that they should be able to distribute the Java Runtime with their GPL’d distro of choice, but that others cannot distribute GPL’d programs with their non-GPL platforms. If OpenSolaris distributions are going to catch flak from GPL nazis over the inclusion of GPL software, then why should SuSE, Gentoo, Debian, etc. have distribution rights for Java, .NET, etc?
It makes me question the rhetoric about freedom when people are being so artificially restricted. In fact, if anything, I think that anyone with common sense on this can see through the talk about “freedom” and realize that the GPL in practice is a quite restrictive license since it doesn’t allow people to mix and match software as they see fit.
Isn’t that what freedom is about? How is Debian any freer than Windows, if it cannot be ported to a closed source operating system?
that is a brilliant post my friend! you are absolutely correct!
> but that others cannot distribute GPL’d programs
> with their non-GPL platforms
You are very wrong there: There’s OpenOffice, GTK+, Python, Inkscape, gcc, gimp, and a very long etcetera running without problems under windows. And ANY BSD distribution has hundreds, or thousands, of GPL programs available, and even installed by default.
The problem seems to be that the debian tools are GPL and so their binaries are restricted to using a c library which is GPL or LGPL, like glibc, but unlike Sun’s.
Porting glibc to Solaris would solve the problem, but it is a huge task. Rewriting the debian tools under a new license that was compatible to the CDDL would also do. Maybe porting uClibc would do, and might be easier.
Now, how much of this is just a technicality and how much is an agression to open software, I really don’t understand. Whether this trouble is necessary or not, also evades me. The fact is (or seems to be) that Sun created the CDDL precisely in order to hinder the integration of its code with GPL code, in order to keep Solaris goodies out of the Linux kernel; unfortunately, now it works against them. Or not, if the Debian Fathers decide there is no problem.
There’s bound to be lots more trouble like this, as corporations try to integrate Open and Proprietary or, as we say in Spanish, as they try swimming while watching over their clothes.
why add a buncha gpl crap when what we have already works? looks like a dead-end distro to me.
come’on make some big change to fork the product.
a solaris kernel with debian’s packaging system isn’t a big enough change for you? Why did linus bother making linux? We already had a unix-alike that worked, after all…
Hopefully there would be another openSolaris distro with BSD userland and pkgsrc.
BTW I believe the GPL zealots (also in the Debian community) also know that their argument that Nexenta violates the license terms is flawed. I believe they are more concerned about a non-GPL opensource OS (openSolaris) being better in every aspect than what they have long been working on. Because of their own fear, they spread FUD.
Let’s port ZFS,DTrace, Containers etc. and add them to Linux kernel. Who the f–k gives a shit? No wait? That would be disaster. Copyright Law and Licences are the key part of Open Source and Free Software.
Your sarcasm doesnt make sense to me. Nexenta is not taking anything from Linux and putting it in Solaris or vice versa. That of course would be a something worth discussing.
The real issue appears to be the fact that certain developers just really really hate the idea of using the Solaris kernel. I mean lets face it, thats what this really about. The libc (non)issue is just a red herring. I don’t know exactly why that is, since there has never been a similar uprising against the BSD’s for similar actions. Maybe it is because BSD is really not a threat to Linux and Solaris is?
the bsd license is compatable with GPL. This is why BSD can do this.
I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
There is nothing stopping you from porting ZFS, DTrace or Containers/Zones to work with linux. Or any of the BSDs.
What people (particularly zealots) do is conflate “port” with “integrate into the kernel” — two radically different things.
Do people who run linux demand that Veritas/Symantec make source available for VxVM or VxFS, or that those two products get integrated into the linux kernel? No, they don’t. So why does Sun get covered in a stinking pile every time Sun makes an announcement in any related to source code? Because Sun decided — for very valid, business-related reasons — that the GPL was not the right license for OpenSolaris. That’s all there is to it.
So if you want to port (Open)Solaris technologies to make them available in linux or *BSD then please do so and stop whining about the CDDL not being compatible with the GPL. If it’s integration into the linux kernel that you want hassle Linus since he’s the one who decides what goes in.
So between all the arguing between GPL vs CDDL, did anyone actually try it?
While it would be nice to discuss the compelling advantages of a real open source Solaris operating system with all the free software trimmings, the licensing issues surrounding this new class of *nix will (and should) overshadow the distribution itself.
This is in many ways the start of the first viable “war” on GNU/Linux for the title of king of the open source UNIX roost. When Sun introduces an attractive open source operating system, licensed under its own corporatized version of the copyleft license, and allows (along with the Linux/GPL community) it to be shipped with a barrage of GPL applications and utilities, they are effectively co-opting the GNU/Linux community.
This might not be a horrible thing (for GNU/Linux users), and I’m sure the two communities can coexist. But the fact of the matter is that, relative to the GPL, the CDDL does grant explicit rights to the copyright owner and does explicitly takes rights away from the users. By introducing their viral license into the GPL ecosystem (and by the GNU/Linux community allowing this to happen), Sun gains the mandate and userbase to slowly replace GPL software with their own CDDL software. And as a result, we get a new CDDL ecosystem that offers its users less rights, while granting explicity to Sun the patent rights to community contributions to its source code.
So what happens here, what the response of the Linux community will be, as huge bearing on the future of the entire free software community. Will we let Sun walk in and establish its own license-protected ecosystem based on our work, or will the FSF turn this into a high profile grudge match? Free software is all about forks, but usually it’s the software that forks. This time it’s the license that’s been forked by Sun. Somehow I don’t think that license forking is beneficial to the users and to the community.
Ok, we all accept that the CDDL libc against which the GPL dpkg tools are linked is not a derivative work of dpkg. Therefor, no problem… Until someone argues that no problem AS LONG AS THEY DON’T DISTRIBUTE THEM TOGETHER.
Ok, so:
– Why PC-BSD (for example) can distribute together their BSD licenced core along with GPL licenced software? Or any other BSD that uses GCC (even Mac OS X ships with it!). What’s the difference?
– Less theorical but more practical: If it is perfectly ok to download and install dpkg in Nexenta, why not allow it to ship with it and save troubles to USERS???? Sun doesn’t sue those linux distros that ship with JRE. Even Macromedia doesn’t sue those who ship with Shockwave Flash ! Why would Debian sue Nexenta for such a thing???
– And most important, has anybody actually tried to ride this beast?
does nexenta include Sun’s Java? if not, what can you be done for making it default? there are tons of Java developers suffering from java install difficulties issues with Linux systems. OpenSolaris public builds are very well on that aspect. if the only problem is to show a license agreement, please do so..
Also, i cannot register to the froum in the website..
any word on whether KDE is available as a DE?
Sun distributes Gnome with Solaris (in the same CD) since some years ago and nobody complained. I don´t see the difference with this.
I just installed it on a spare system and it seems to run okay. They have a GUI installer in the works for Alpha 2, so that should help bring OpenSolaris to the masses. My only complaint with this release is that X11 seems choppy and weird, like the video drivers aren’t working correctly. Not sure if that’s a kernel issue or something that will be fixed in a newer release of the OS.
You license weenies complain… but how do you explain FreeBSD??? Is that not the same concept? So much of microsoft and Apple’s operating systems depend on the hard work of BSD.
Give this OS a chance… I’d really like to see where it can go.
As far as Sun is concerened, they have donated so much man power to the Gnome desktop cause already. They are not some evil empire, ask any of the employees that work there.
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=509&slide=1…
I just finished installing Nexenta inside VMWare and holy sh*t! This is an extremely impressive OpenSolaris distro. The installation routine is mostly automated and is about as difficult to install as OpenBSD, not Anaconda simple, but not too difficult if you follow their directions and you have an above-average knowledge of computers.
I just might switch from using Linux to using this if and when it matures a little more. It will be interesting to see how much Solaris x86 software will actually run out of the box on this. (I’m looking at running Java to be more specific.)
Overall it is very very impressive for an early alpha release.
Good work Nextenta team! Don’t let the zealots and trolls get you down.
A good summary of CDDL versus GPL, with references for further study: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/350900
can we try out zfs on nexenta? anyone tried zfs on nexenta yet? is also on the live cd version? or need to get the 4 iso version? can someone say something more about what works and what doesnt?
Their Roadmap tells it will “stable” in the next 6 months, in time to be shipped with 2.14 (don’t know gnome’s roadmap)?
http://www.gnusolaris.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/roadmap
Is this distribution compiled with Sun Studio?
According to
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleL…
it is permitted to distribute a GPL program with the non-free library it depends on if the
copyright holder of the GPL program gives permission to do so.
If no permission is given it does not violate the GPL, it violates the copyright. Since the
link concerns non-free libraries it also concerns other free libraries that are not GPL.
So the usage of the OpenSolaris kernel and
C library is not a violation of the GPL.
The copyright holder can be found in /usr/share/doc/dpkg/copyright:
“Copyright (C) 1994 Ian Murdock ”.
In fact Ian Murdock has blogged about the issue and supports Nexenta and calls it a good deed.
http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278
I also searched the web and found this quote from RMS:
“Before we had the GNU C library, every program depended on a non-free C library.
Before we had Linux, the first free kernel, every program depended on a non-free kernel.”
The article can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
It is explained why using a non-free library is permitted but restricts freedom as they interpret it.
I wonder what they would say about CDDL, can one freedom restrict another freedom?
/Magnus
“The copyright holder can be found in /usr/share/doc/dpkg/copyright: “Copyright (C) 1994 Ian Murdock ”.”
Erm, not quite! Quote the whole thing, please. As of version 1.13.11, the following are listed as holding copyright on portions of dpkg:
—
Copyright © 2004-2005 Scott James Remnant <[email protected]>
Copyright © 2004-2005 Canonical Ltd.
Copyright © 1999-2002 Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1999-2001 Marcus Brinkmann <[email protected]>
Copyright © 2001 Joey Hess <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1994-1999 Ian Jackson <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1999 Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1999 Ben Collins <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1999 Roderick Shertler <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1996-1998 Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1997-1998 Juho Vuori <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1997-1998 Charles Briscoe-Smith <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1998 Nils Rennebarth <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1998 Juan Cespedes <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1998 Jim Van Zandt <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1998 Koichi Sekido <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1995-1996 Erick Branderhorst <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1996 Kim-Minh Kaplan <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1996 Klee Dienes <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1996 Michael Shields <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1995 Bruce Perens <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1994 Carl Streeter <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1994 Matt Welsh <[email protected]>
Copyright © 1994 Ian Murdock <[email protected]>
—
Since this OS is actually GNU, the question I am about to ask is directed at the Kernel being Solaris: Does the Solaris Kernel have binary compatibility with Linux based ELF executables? (I do know Linux standardised on ELF which was the executable type Solaris had)…
If the Kernel retains binary compatibility with a Linux Kernel, that would mean GNU/Solaris would run any and all GNU/Linux based applications provided they are not directly tied to the Linux Kernel?