On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:53:53AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > > If Debian really wans to be "system runtime" independent, and would like > > > to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL > > > software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to > > > suvirve. > > Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing > > problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and > > GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now. > ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out > GNU/Solaris's non-glic port issue. It is still serious one. Please help > to resolve it. Whether the CDDL is GPL-compatible or not, whether it's decided to be DFSG-compliant or not, the CDDL is a *bad* license from a Free Software standpoint because it imposes conditions on users use of the code which other Free Software licenses do not. I don't see any incentive at all for Debian, as an organization dedicated to Free Software, to try to "sort out" this issue. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature