Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
> against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
> (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
> investigated it closely.) That's not what this thread is about.
There was a thread about the CDDL a few months ago on debian-legal [1]. Many
people argued that it was not DFSG-free due to the choice of venue clause.
I argued very fiercly that this clause did not prevent it from being a
DFSG-free license. In the end though, I was convinced that this clause is
in fact non-free because it imposes a serious potential burden on simply
copying the software around, which is a freedom that I believe should be
unrestricted.
I realize that this is a contentious matter so I'm not willing to push this
belief on other people, but I recommend you take a look at the thread and
decide for yourself. If the Debian/OpenSolaris people are serious about
becoming a subproject then the question is something that the project as a
whole is going to have to deal with.
- David Nusinow
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00025.html
Reply to: