Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Guys: Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but... I have a fairly reliable DSL line, with an unused Sun Blade 100 and a number of ARM and MIPS boards behind it. If anyone wants to help me get them set up for buildd, drop me an email. b.g. Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written... Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written... Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported snapshots. Apart from writing software for embedded arm things, I can't see the value "Linux desktop box" comes to mind... But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box? Compatibility with what I already have and use? The older hardware won't last forever (and this Risc PC, for example, is 10 years old)... A reasonable answer is because you're developing for arm's for embedded applications; but if so, what's the big deal with using unstable or snapshots, and running your public servers on other boxes? What's wrong with people just using them as desktop boxes, using both OSes? [1] -- and if an arch is just going to be used for development, does it really need all the support we give stable in order to make it useful for servers and such? Probably not, but ISTM that you'll first have to ascertain that it *is* only being used for development before you can say that that support definitely isn't needed. Uh, you've got that round the wrong way: you don't do something because you can't say support definitely isn't needed, you do something because you *can* say support definitely *is* needed. That may well be, but ISTM that you implied that the arch isn't going to be used for non-development tasks... If so, why? If not, what level of support does it need, that goes beyond "unstable + snapshotting facility", and why? Debian developers [...] You're focusing too much on development here. There are users too, you know... :-) Haven't seen any evidence of it -- developers and vendors, yes, users, or uses, no... I can't answer all of that myself, but there are people who can. (Adding debian-arm. Note followups to both lists.) [1] Not at the same time, of course. ;-) -- Bill Gatliff Embedded Linux *is* user friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: restricted sourceless ARM uploads
Wookey wrote: On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Hi, For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see [1]. Very impressive piece of work aurelien! We ought to discuss if there is any significant reason not to use qemu 'machines' instead of actual hardware for slower arches. As long as there's the occasional test on actual hardware, I don't have a problem with it. For the faster arches, i.e. the ARM9 machines and above, I'm thinking that we should stick with real hardware so there's no question that the binaries will run properly. How fast is each of your build machines in comparison to existing buildds? The offered Hedges machine is more than twice as fast as existing buildds and really ought to be brought into the network - it has been offered for about 2 months now. I will mail DSA again to see if anyone will tell what needs to be done next, by whom, and when. It is very rude to people making such offers to give no response at all for such a long time. Fortunately bill seems very tolerant of Debian's foibles, What choice do I have? I'm not a DD, so it isn't like I have any authority to do otherwise. :) and we can at least use it as a private developer-access machine in the meantime. Indeed. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: restricted sourceless ARM uploads
Bill: A very basic reason is that some packages require 1GB of RAM to build in finite time and there are no arm and m68k buildd with that amount of RAM. Could you try those packages on hedges? (You can get developer access from Wookey if you need it). Hedges has 512MB real and 1.5GB swap. And unlike leisner, the netwinders, or nslu2s, it's expandable if needed. An alternative is to use distcc+crosscc to a distccd server with 1GB of RAM. I've done this before (rebuilt X that way, just as a test!), but it has similar concerns to the QEMU approach. But on that point, I've never had any issues with either distcc+crossgcc--- which I've tested extensively--- or QEMU. But forcing the use of real hardware wherever possible means (a) you know for sure, and (b) you have to keep your real hardware maintained. Those seem like good things. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: i386-uclibc debian
Guys: Regarding this: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01362.html I would be very interested in mips and arm-el ports. I have dedicated build hardware available for both. PLEASE let me know what else I can do to help! (I've tinkered with dpkg in the past, but I'm no guru. Hardly even a noob, in fact). Thanks! b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Hamish: I read all of your points as criticisms of Linux. That is disappointing. I read most of his points as being factual, some of which might be comparisons to and constructive criticisms of Linux. Not disappointing at all. I don't think anyone could argue that Linux's interfaces are stable. What, with the lead promoter and configuration manager on record as saying stability is not an objective. [And as someone who maintains kernels for a living, I can tell you with no uncertainty that he's meeting that non-objective really, really well.] b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Erast Benson wrote: in short, the answer on your "legality" question is in GPL itself. Look for "executable runtime" explanations. This is the reason for Cygwin, www.blastwave.org and others to exists. Or rather, in cases where code is linked with glibc, the LGPL. See "a work that uses the library". b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
The words "executable runtime" are not present in the text of the GPL. What the GPL *does* say is that kernels are only exempted from being considered part of the GPL definition of source code for a work *if* the GPLed work is not distributed together with the kernel. I think you're stretching the definition of "distributed together" somewhat, in an effort to exclude all non-GPL software from any GNU/* operating system. That's not what the GPL intends: GPL: """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.""" What this says is if I distribute an application A whose source code is licensed under the GPL, then I must also distribute the source code for that application. If the application A is provided along with the major components of the operating system it runs on, then I must provide the source code for those components as well. In other words, if the only means to deploy application A is via something like a "live" Linux CD, then I have to also provide the source code for the GPL major components that application A depends on as they appear on that CD (kernel, compiler, C runtime library, etc.) so that the user could reconstruct the CD as needed to redeploy the application. If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Furthermore, the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause allows for non-GPL applications to run in GPL operating systems. As an example, the Linux kernel and userland applications clearly have a distinct identity and can exist independently of each other; thus, their coexistence is defined by the GPL to be mere aggregation, and the license status of either party does not in isolation affect the license status of the other. Assuming you use glibc and other GNU-license-compatible runtime libraries, mere aggregation allows for a Debian userland under even a closed-source kernel (which would be an extreme interpretation of the Solaris license). Thus, I don't see a problem here. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
But yes, GPL is more restrictive than CDDL. More accurately, the GPL preserves more end user rights than CDDL. That's hardly restrictive--- especially if you're an end user. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If application A is deployed as a standalone application built using the major components of the target operating system, a'la a Debian package, I don't have to provide source code for anything other than the application itself. Wrong. Alright then, enlighten me. Furthermore, the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause allows for non-GPL applications to run in GPL operating systems. Yes, but we're talking about the *reverse*. The mere aggregation clause is not relevant here. Allow me to restate, then. Mere aggregation also allows GPL applications to run under a non-GPL kernel. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Matthew Garrett wrote: Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: """The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. 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.""" "Unless that component itself accompanies the executable". Or, in other words, the binary (say, bash) can't accompany, say, the C library. You can quibble over the meaning of the word "accompany", but so far we're lacking a statement from any of the copyright holders (such as Sun, the FSF or the thousands of other people who hold copyright over GPLed software) about what their interpretation is. From this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) <http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property" <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml>. <http://bits.netizen.com.au/licenses/NOSL/nosl.txt> -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program
Thomas: Alright then, enlighten me. Let us suppose that you have a GPLd application "foo" which links against "libbar". You can only distribute the binaries for foo under section 3 of the GPL, which requires you to provide the complete source for libbar, and you must do so providing all the freedoms that GPL sections 1 and 2 guarantee. That is, you have to distribute libbar in source, and libbar must have a GPL-compatible license. You have one special exception: if libbar is BOTH: normally distributed together with the major components of the operating system AND not distributed along with your binary for foo, then you are exempted from the requirement to provide the source for libbar. Right. You have replaced those two very specific requirements with your own phrasing, which is different in some important cases. Indeed, the problem is strictly with my oversimplification. I understand and concur with what you are saying, and hereby retract my crappy summary a few posts back. :) You have ommitted the second clause entirely, and it is this which is most relevant here. The special exception allows you to ship, for example, emacs binaries linked against the proprietary HPUX libraries, provided HP distributes those libraries along with the major components of HPUX (that is, they cannot have unbundled them), and provided you are not shipping those libraries yourself. This is specifically designed to prevent HP from including an emacs binary which is linked against their libraries, shipping the whole thing as part of HPUX, and not providing the source for their libraries. I understood all of this before, but now you've made it clear why it's at issue here. CDDL is not GPL-compatible. GNU/Solaris will ship GPL applications like emacs. Aaah, yes b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: I'm amazed at the level of intolerence that's greeting a pretty major contribution to the free software community. There are, what, five major OS/kernels for PCs/workstatsions these days -- Windows, OS X, Solaris, BSD and Linux. How does it make any sense at all to be hostile to the fact that now four out of those five are free at their core? I think that in this instant case, the "hostility" is the allegation that a Debian-based "GNU/Solaris" system as described by Erast isn't possible. Even when pressed, Erast hasn't addressed the CDDL/GPL incompatibility issue. And that's obviously a topic that plenty of people in the Debian crowd have an opinion on. :) I don't see it as hostility, I see it as an attempt to enforce the GPL. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bug closing etiquette
Eric: Miles Bader wrote: Eric Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Suppose someone has reported a bug that the maintainer can't reproduce, but the reporter can. Is it reasonable for the maintainer to email the reporter and ask whether a new version fixes the problem, or is that considered obnoxious? It doesn't seem obnoxious to me. Indeed, as a user, I actually rather appreciate it when maintainer asks me to confirm that a bug I reported is fixed -- it gives the impression that they care about the issue. Ditto. In fact, I wouldn't even mind getting an automated message saying "you filed a report against x.y; x.y+1 has just been released, could you please try it and see if it addresses your issue?" b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: Loved your "for those of you following at home" post. As is "pressing" people. You can justify hostility, certainly; but it's at least worth trying "honest and cooperative" as an approach first. It didn't start out that way, not as I read it anyway. When you see some code that's not available under the GPL's terms, what's your reaction: My reaction is that the author is entitled to make his work products available under any license he chooses. That isn't what's going on here, though. As far as I can tell, Erast is completely disregarding the legitimate rights of the copyright holders of the software he's shipping with his system. That isn't "some code that's not available under the GPL", that's "theft". And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big difference. Erast hasn't done *anything* to address or even acknowledge the CDDL/GPL compatibility issue. His system as currently implemented clearly depends on linking CDDL works with GPL works. The authors of the software he's distributing with his system haven't given him permission to do that. Quite simple, actually. To be fair, I must admit that I'm not a DD and I don't hold copyright to any of Erast's software. But I believe strongly in the way Debian does things, and I use a *lot* of Debian software in my work. So I justify my participation in this thread based on my interest in protecting Debian's interests. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Anthony: Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:56:32PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: And, I mean, seriously: using the threat of legal action to make people remove free software from the Internet? Whose side are we on here? No. The threat of legal action to stop the theft of Free software. Big difference. First, "theft" isn't an appropriate term to use about copyright violations -- you're not depriving anyone of their use. Don't buy into the FUD. With all due respect, and a certain unwillingness to get distracted from the main thread of discussion or to further inflame an already pretty volatile situation, I think that "theft" may in fact be the appropriate term to use here. The copyright holders of GPL works have made clear the terms under which others may use, incorporate or derive from those works. Erast appears to have built and distributed a system that deviates from those terms. He has constructed and subsequently distributed something that's apparently of value to him (otherwise he wouldn't have done it), at the expense of using software that he's not entitled to use for that purpose (as defined by the terms of the GPL, which is the authority granted to him by the copyright holders). Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Honestly, I wouldn't have replied to this at all except that you accused me of "buying into the FUD". Just wanted to set the record straight. :) Whether Erast did so with malicious intent, that's another question entirely. And frankly, not one that I care to have answered. I mean, I'm sure Erast is a nice guy and all. But regardless, he's doing what he's doing; why he's doing it, or whether he even knows that what he's doing is wrong, is relatively unimportant. There, I'm all done now. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris
Glenn: Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:24AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Bill Gatliff writes: Taking something you're not entitled to ~= theft. Nothing is being taken. A copyright may be being infringed, but the owner is not being deprived of any property. No, the owner hasn't been deprived. But the rights said owner conveyed via the GPL (which amount to some level of ownership, at least philosophically) have been deprived from the GNU/Solaris end users. It's the GNU/Solaris end users who have been stolen from. I'll give up now. Is that dead horse I smell? :) There's something darkly amusing about arguments coming from Free Software people that sound very close to "intellectual property". I wonder if people will start suggesting copy protection with DMCA enforcement. :) Yea, what we need here are some software dongles. Free Software dongles. :P (kidding!!) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
