Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Nov 2005 12:28 UTC, submitted by Andrei
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris 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.
Thread beginning with comment 63132
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: not again..
by r_a_trip on Mon 21st Nov 2005 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE: not again.."
r_a_trip
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: not again..
by CaptainPinko on Mon 21st Nov 2005 18:59 in reply to "RE[2]: not again.."
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: not again..
by bcantrill on Mon 21st Nov 2005 19:22 in reply to "RE[3]: not again.."
bcantrill Member since:
2005-09-16

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...

Reply Parent Score: 5