Dear FSF members,

   I am the newly elected Debian Project Leader, from April 2007 to
April 2008 and I am writing to you to request a clarification about
the GPL version 2, more specifically its compatibility with the CDDL
license (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt) and
the interpretation of the end of clause 3 of the GPLv2.

   Though discussions did not start very well, the Debian and Nexenta
projects are still considering joining forces in providing an operating
system using the Solaris kernel and libc (both licensed under Sun's
CDDL) and the GNU system as well as the rest of the software currently
in Debian (a huge part of which being either "GPLv2" or "GPLv2 or
later").


   First, let me summarise the reasoning that is causing us trouble:

   According to you (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html),
the CDDL and GPLv2 licences are incompatible and "a module covered by
the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked
together".

   There is an exception in the GPLv2 section 3, though: "the source
code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed
with the major components of the operating system on which the
executable runs". The Solaris libc is definitely a major component of
the operating system.

   However there is also an exception to this exception: "unless that
component itself accompanies the executable". Unfortunately there is
also no doubt that the Solaris libc would accompany the GPLv2 binaries
shipped with the Debian/Nexenta system we are referring to.

   Therefore, under strict interpretation of the GPLv2 it seems
impossible to us to distribute an operating system containing the
Solaris libc and the GPLv2 executables linked with it.


   Eben Moglen has nonetheless been quoted as saying there were no legal
restrictions to distributing such a system, though I could not find any
official statement. Also the Debian project acknowledges that despite
the two licences being incompatible, they are both acceptable copyleft
licences and it would be in the best interest of Free Software to permit
such a distribution.

   I am therefore asking the FSF to clarify whether:

    1. our reasoning is correct, the redistribution is impossible, and we
    should wait for the GPLv3 to be released.

    2. the GPLv2 and CDDL licences are in fact /not/ incompatible.
    
    3. clause 3 of the GPLv2 should not be interpreted as strictly as
    we do.

    4. there is a hole somewhere else in our reasoning.

   Also, what guarantees can we have that the copyright holder of a
piece of GPLv2 work will not choose to take legal action against Debian
or its users under his/her strict interpretation of the GPLv2? What
would be the consequences of weakening that interpretation, specificaly
on the validity of clause 3 of the GPLv2?

   Hoping you can enlighten us.

Best regards,
-- 
Sam Hocevar