Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
Martin Man writes:
> Forwarding once again my email, since it seems it has not gone through
> to the list for the first time.
> From: Martin Man <Martin.Man@Sun.COM>
> Subject: Debian and CDDL and DFSG
> To: debian-legal@debian.org, gnusol-users@gnusolaris.org
> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:02:49 +0200
>
> Hi all,
>
> I was searching around the web regadring the $subj, but I was unable to
> find any official statement from Debian concerning the issue.
>
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
>
> If there is no such document, could I get CDDL licensed software to
> main? Should I ask first debian-legal? what would be the answer?
>
> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
> "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
Choice of venue provisions are often argued to impose fees upon
redistribution. The fee-shifting provision seems even more
problematic to me. The contract construction clause worries me to a
lesser extent -- it seems superfluous but not necessarily harmful.
Some people argue that forced self-identification (section 3.3) is
impermissible.
If you want an "official statement from Debian" one way or the other,
you will probably need to find a sponsor for a general resolution; as
far as I know, Debian has not appointed anyone with specific power to
decide such questions in general. FTP-masters have the power to
decide in particular cases by accepting or rejecting packages in NEW,
but that is based on their judgment and not an official position.
Michael Poole
(Not a Debian Developer; not a lawyer)
Reply to: