George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary
> (Executable Versions) form!
There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
do not require contradictory conditions...
> CDDL 1.0 says:
>
> 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.
...
> the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You
> distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different license,
> You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this
> License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or
> Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every
> Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such
> Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.
>
>
> So someone must decide the license of the distribution of the Covered
> Software
> in Executable form. Also this sort of indemnification is insane, but that is
> perfectly clear.
....
> I don't think Debian can fulfil the requirements of this License (CDDL 1.0)
> because of indemnification mentioned above (at least) for the Executable form
> of the Covered Software (1.4. Executable means the Covered Software in any
> form other than Source Code.)
You have been very unclear with your text, so I may only comment the part where
you have been unambiguous.
If Debian is in fear of the last two sentences from CDDL §3.5, then I see only
one possible reason:
Debian is planning to distribute the binary in a way that causes harm to
the original developer or contributors.
This gives a deep look inside Debian.....
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
