GnuTLS Update [LSARC/2008/341 FastTrack timeout 06/03/2008]

[James Carlson]

Jörg Barfurth writes:
> James Carlson schrieb:
> >>         Note:
> >>          The "extra" GnuTLS libraries -- which contains OpenPGP and TLS/IA 
> >>          support, LZO compression, the OpenSSL compatibility library -- 
> >>          and the self tests and command line tools are distributed under 
> >>          the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (or later), therefore,
> >>          we remove them.  
> > 
> > Yikes.  Subordinating system architecture and open source
> > compatibility to legal review seems like a long-term mistake.
> > 
> 
> I think use of the GPL for libraries is a special case here, as would be 
> use of any similarly 'viral' license, which places requirements on 

I never mentioned any "viral" problems, and that's not the problem I
have with this case.

The problem I have is that a couple of random components -- ones that
are in Solaris today -- were removed from this project because the
upgraded license is now considered to be unacceptable.

In effect, we're using legalese to determine system architecture, and
I think that's a problem.  Perhaps there's a reason why lopping off
these particular limbs won't hurt anyone, but as a general principle,
we're headed for trouble if we determine system architecture on the
basis of what passes the lawyers.

A better solution is to decouple these things: do the architectural
review on the *whole* case, ignoring the legal questions, and then
allow the project team to go off and do the legal review as a
dependency for shipping.

Otherwise, this looks like a preemptive strike.

> > Is anyone looking at this problem?  Or will Open Solaris (despite the
> > best efforts of the Indiana team and the ARC "gang of four") just
> > drift away from Linux as more things become GPLv3?
> > 
> 
> Maybe we need a separate 'GPL licensed libraries and plugins' package 
> repository outside the 'core OpenSolaris' one, just as much as we appear 
> to need 'closed source bits and pieces' or 'other less well integrated 

That's still not the problem I'm citing.

We have a high level directive from Tim Marsland saying that
everything must be "familiar," which (as far as I understand it) means
"the same as on some currently popular distribution Linux; probably
Ubuntu."

By hacking away components from what we deliver -- particularly doing
so on the basis of a fear of GPLv3 -- we're failing to comply with
that directive.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677