Le jeudi 03 novembre 2005 à 12:57 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit : > 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.
So you are asking the dpkg copyright holders to change *their* licensing to suit *your* needs? This is getting funnier and funnier. Now here's the problem. Face it: there's no way you can convince all dpkg copyright holders (and that's probably a lot of people) to dual-license their code under a license that isn't even DFSG-free. What are you proposing now to legally build a Debian OpenSolaris port? (Yes, I'm asking just to know what weird idea will arise now.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
