Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently you misunderstood me. > All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace > GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core > components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
Not every dpkg copyright holder is still a member of the Debian community, so it's not something that the Debian community can decide to do. > CDDL will not allow to create proprietary dpkg without forcing > proprietary workers to open up their changes back to the community. So, > it is practically what GPL does. CDDL allows people to build proprietary products that incorporate dpkg code. That's entirely the point of making it file based. If dpkg is released under the CDDL, I can build (say) a graphical installer that incorporates dpkg code. I am only obliged to release the source code of files that originally came from dpkg - the majority of my code can remain closed, and not contributed to the community in any way. Under the GPL, I would be obliged to provide source code for the entire application. That's the important difference between the two, and that's why dpkg is under the GPL and not the LGPL. It's a basic philosophical issue, and has nothing to do with whether a port is based on glibc or not. In fewer words: dpkg is under the license it's under because the GPL has the desired effects. The CDDL and the LGPL wouldn't, and so it's not likely to be dual-licensed. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
