| |||||||||||||
Re: ... and agree to some generic licenseRe: ... and agree to some generic licensePosted Sep 20, 2010 23:12 UTC (Mon) by ldo (subscriber, #40946)In reply to: Oracle's "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel" by ofirm Parent article: Oracle's "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel"
Id say the agreement to export restrictions, at least, would seem to contravene the terms of the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 21, 2010 7:28 UTC (Tue) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
Oracle is bound by the same export restriction as any US-based company, but it's certainly interesting how more proactive they enforce this restriction.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 21, 2010 8:56 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
back when the restrictions were being enforced more stringently than they are now, Oracle was already a large company dealing with encryption and getting a lot of attention as a result. They probably setup standard practices and boilerplate that persists because it's easy to keep doing it, but deciding to stop doing something they are already doing would be a risk and draw attention to the thing where it's being stopped.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 23, 2010 5:48 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (guest, #1698) [Link] Oracle is bound by the same export restriction as any US-based companyYes, but section 7 of the GPL says "If [...] conditions are imposed on you [...] that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." In other words, if they are not able to satisfy section 3b and give source code TO ANY THIRD PARTY, then they cannot comply with the GPL, and may not distribute Linux at all. US export law, or the laws of any other country, don't excuse anyone from complying with the GPL.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 23, 2010 10:12 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
So I just have to found a state that disallows to own software at all and that would make all GPL applications invalid world wide? :-)
I wonder if Steve Ballmer/Jobs should not buy a small rock somewhere in some ocean.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 23, 2010 16:24 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (guest, #1698) [Link] So I just have to found a state that disallows to own software at all and that would make all GPL applications invalid world wide?No. If it is illegal to own software in Lower Slobovia, that doesn't make it illegal for me as a US citizen to sell software to someone there, because I am not within Lower Slobovia's legal jurisdiction. It is generally up to the citizens of Lower Slobovia to deal with their laws. But if Lower Slobovia allows its citizens to distribute software to France, but prohibits distribution to Italy, then its citizens can't redistribute GPL'd software while depending on section 3b of the GPL. They would have to rely on section 3a or 3c instead. If you think about this a little bit, you can probably figure out why it actually is relevant to the US, and not just the hypothetical Lower Slobovia.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 23, 2010 20:02 UTC (Thu) by jds2001 (subscriber, #50765) [Link]
They distribute source under 3a. See http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL5/5/base/... which includes *both* source and binary distributions.
Also see http://blogs.oracle.com/wim/2010/09/some_quick_answers_on...
Hats off to Oracle on this, they've one-upped RHT on source availability.
Re: ... and agree to some generic license Posted Sep 23, 2010 20:15 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
"Hats off to Oracle on this, they've one-upped RHT on source availability."
Doesn't that depend on whether the git tree they posted will
|
|||||||||||||