Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Erast Benson writes:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
> >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
> >> > it
> >> > > stabilizes?
> >> > Yes.
> >> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
> >> DFSGs?
> >> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
> >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
> > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
> The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
> thing. It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
> those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
> much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
> have changed. For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
> thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
> patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that? Does Sun
> represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What
> about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?
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.