system library exception [LWN.net]

system library exception

Posted Jan 18, 2006 1:20 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: system library exception by JoeBuck
Parent article: GPLv3: a first look

I think the Debian/Solaris problem is something that is inherent in Debian rather then in the GPL v2 license.

After all the original GNU software was developed on and binaries distributed for Solaris operating system.

I just think this GPLv3 just spells it out more plainly.

It's like the patent thing.. As I understand it there is a implied patent distribution rights with the GPLv2.. Basicly means that if you have a software patent and you develop software that utilizes this patented concept and you then distribute the software under GPLv2 software you can't then sue the people that use it. It won't stand up in court.

GPLv3 makes this statement outright to give it more force.

(Log in to post comments)

system library exception

Posted Jan 19, 2006 9:38 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

SunOS, actually. GNU *long* predates Solaris.

system library exception and derived works

Posted Jan 20, 2006 3:12 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> I think the Debian/Solaris problem is something that is inherent
> in Debian rather then in the GPL v2 license.

You can read some of the controversy here. There is a lot of
misunderstanding:

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2189...

The Debian/Solaris problem is partly in the interpretation of the GPLv2
definition of "complete source code". If you distribute binaries, you
must provide *source* that is sufficient to modify and regenerate those
binaries. There is an exception for system components such as compilers
and standard libraries. There's also an exception to the exception: "...
unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

So the dispute is very much down to the interpretation of the language of
version 2 of the GPL. The language in this draft of version 3 is not
quite so ambiguous.

Note that the source of the CDDL libc *is* provided, just not under GPL
terms. So in order to complain about the licence incompatibility you
also have to take a pretty strict interpretation of what is a 'derived
work'. It all hinges on whether *each* of two components distributed
together and intended to be linked at runtime constitutes a part of a
work derived from *both*. The same issue arises in the distribution of
closed kernel modules together with a GPL kernel.