On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids > > some restrictions present in the CDDL. > > It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable > license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows > the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a > general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow!
Also you may take into account that if an author of cddl'ed software want to see it into free software linux/hurd/bsd distributions then the software could be easily double licensed, e.g. CDDL/GPL, CDDL/BSD, CDDL/Artistic, and so on. If it can not be double licensed with any proven free software license for any weird reason, then I'll suspect that can of worms will start showing sooner or later. In today's crazy days I'll go for a conservative approach. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
