Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> >
> > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
>
> It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free
> it's up to you explaining why.

here they are:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00037.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00038.html

of course left with no well-grounded substantiations or explanations it is 
other way around [1]:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2169&tstart=0

I also think this breaches the Debian Social Contract#4, since you expose your 
users on baseless charges of license violation for no good reasons all over 
the world. Breaks "We will place their interests first in our priorities."

These two make it dangerous and even worse than plain nonfree clear-worded 
license IMHO.

[1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star is 
weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug.

-- 
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