On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Erast Benson writes: > > > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote: > >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote: > >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once > >> > it > >> > > stabilizes? > >> > >> > Yes. > >> > >> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with > >> DFSGs? > >> > >> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :) > >> > >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html > >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris > >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken > > > > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces > > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues. > > The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such > thing. It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular, > those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are > much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts > have changed. For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal > thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a > patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that? Does Sun > represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What > about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?
I'm not talking about DFSG to embrace CDDL entirely. CDDL is good enough for what it was invented - "system runtime". To make CDDL-based ports possible with more/less pain and to avoid duplication of work, it should be enough to make only dpkg software dual-licensed as CDDL/GPL. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
