[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-07-30

Alan Cox alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Sat Aug 9 13:40:05 PDT 2008

> code and docs with the boilerplate that says you have access to their
> code under GPL version x.y /or any later version/. That means if the
> FSF does go nutty, a lot of projects are hosed. (IMHO, YMMV, IANAL,
> etc.)

I think you are confused. "or any later version" gives you the right to
say "actually the current one is fine", and the GPL has wording in it
against the 'goes nuts' case about GPL changing basic concept. The FSF
did that way back when to deal not with the 'going nuts' case but the
'FSF taken over' case.

> This is in interesting point. However, is a test suite really a
> dependency? You can build Java without the tests and even incorporate
> it into your distro; you just can't call it "Java" or use any other
> Sun trademarks.

It becomes a dependency if

- The LSB was to require a /usr/bin/java and it wasn't clear the
situation about /usr/bin/java and trademark. Sun can fix that by a simple
statement and estoppel will do the rest

- The LSB was to require a Sun test compliant Java

If the LSB simply says "a Java enabled LSB distribution shall.." then its
a choice and people can decide if they wish to be 'Java enabled' or not.
And if other people happen to ship a compatible not-Java in the same
location everyone is fine.

So there are lots of ways to do this right for everyone involved.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list