Fwd: Why rpm5 and smart for Belenix

[Sriram Narayanan]

FYI

A bit of a long thread, but I wanted the smart mailing list to have a
record of the Belenix team's decision to continue to use rpm5 and the smart
package manager.

-- Sriram

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sriram Narayanan <sriram at belenix.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Why rpm5 and smart for Belenix
To: rpm-devel <rpm-devel at rpm5.org>, rpm-users at rpm5.org


All:

For various reasons, we'd chosen to use rpm5 + smart for Belenix [1]

There was some recent development in the openindiana and illumos
communities, where Nexenta has reiterated that they would continue to
use their modified (or rather enhanced to be ZFS-aware) version of
dpkg + apt-get. I had an email exchange with Garrett, who is one of
the founding members of Illumos as well as a senior officer at
Nexenta.

The Belenix team will continue to use rpm5 and the smart package manager.

-- Sriram

[1] http://www.belenix.org/content/Proposal-use-rpm5-package-format-and-smart-package-manager

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sriram Narayanan <sriram at belenix.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:54 PM
Subject: Fwd: About dpkg and apt-get
To: Belenix Developers <belenix-dev at opensolaris.org>


All:

Summary: I asked Garrett D'Amore of Nexenta/Illumos on Nexenta's
choice of using dpkg despite lack of clarity from Debian Legal. With
his permission, I'm forwarding his response to this mailing list.

My thoughts:
We should continue to use rpm5 and the smart package manager, given
the friendliness of the rpm5 team and the smart team with helping
others with adopting their technology in contrast to throwing
obstacles.


-- Ram


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sriram Narayanan <sriram at belenix.org>
Date: Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: About dpkg and apt-get
To: Garrett D'Amore <garrett at damore.org>


On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at damore.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
>
>> Hi Garrett:
>>
>> It has been my impression that the Debian Legal community hasn't given
>> a clear answer to whether they're fine with dpkg being used on a
>> non-GPL kernel [1]
>
> I don't see that it matters.  The GPL is pretty clear here… the functional boundary of the dpkg code is a self contained program, and the GPL has been very clear that running GPL programs on proprietary kernels is fine.
>
>>
>> I also saw the IRC logs of the oi-meeting from earlier this week, and
>> noted that you've mentioned that Nexenta will continue to use the dpkg
>> format.
>>
>> For Belenix, we've been wary of getting into a mess at some future
>> date, since we are a small group and don't have the wherewithal to get
>> into an argument with Debian Legal. I therefore proposed that we use
>> rpm5 + smart [2] and we're making some amount of progress on this. [3]
>> [4]
>>
>> If possible, could you share with me your thoughts on using dpkg and
>> how you feel that Nexenta would deal with disagreements with Debian
>> Legal in the future ?
>
> I've had conversations with the Debian folks on this.  The challenge/debate has always been the proprietary libc, not the kernel.  And it centers around defining what is a derivative product, and the differences between derivation and consolidation.
>
> The only guys who are fighting this are the guys with an axe to grind about Linux.  In my estimation, and the estimation of at least one very well-known lawyer familiar with this matter (i.e. my legal council), the interpretation that would prevent using GPL user land software on a proprietary OS is "unreasonable", and clearly not the most logical interpretation of the GPL language itself.
>
> The thing is for them to come after us, they would have to come after *every* commercial non-GPL system that ships dpkg -- I think this includes Oracle and Apple, and probably other companies as well.
>
> The *format* of the packages is irrelevant, its just the package manager itself.
>
> At the end of the day, this is all FUD, and it was used to create a barrier to our more broad participation in the Debian community, but my read of this was that it was really done simply because we were not "Linux", and that some OS bigotry came into play and this was a way to keep us out.
>
> Its really silly, because the bone of contention was *not* a proprietary libc, but one that has a copyleft as well with just slightly incompatible terms with the GPL.  In fact, all reasonable open source advocates really understand that the spirit of our libc is completely compatible with the spirit of the GPL -- its just the guys with a political agenda that like to spread licensing FUD.
>
> We have chosen to recognize the FUD for what it is, and ignore the concerns of those spreading it.
>

Thanks for your response, Garrett. Overall, Moinak and I share the
same opinion with you on dpkg.

I also didn't have context earlier on libc, now thanks to you, I do.

>>
>> I'll share your responses with only Moinak Ghosh, in case you'd like
>> me to not discuss your thoughts with others.
>
> I am happy for you to share this as broadly as you like.
>

Thanks !

>        - Garrett
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- Sriram
>> Belenix: www.belenix.org
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/09/msg00001.html
>> [2] http://www.belenix.org/content/Proposal-use-rpm5-package-format-and-smart-package-manager
>> [3] http://www.belenix.org/content/initial-cut-Belenix-Roadmap-a-four-six-week-duration
>> [4] http://www.belenix.org/content/Initial-upload-rpm5-createrepo-and-smart-package-manager
>
>

--
Belenix: www.belenix.org



-- 
Belenix: www.belenix.org