Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:13:56AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > debian-devel re-added.
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
> > > > > CDDL have never been accepted in main.
> > > > star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
> > > > star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...]
> > > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.5a57-1/star.copyright
> > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624
> > > Quoting from the bug log, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > | The CDDL mightn't be the best license in the world, and isn't GPL
> > > | compatible, but it's still DFSG-free. Closing this bug with this
> > > | message.
> > > I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice
> > > of venue is in place.
> > That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a license meets the DFSG
> > isn't particularly useful information, and is even less so when that
> > poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue.
> It's not like there aren't DDs who feel that it isn't DFSG free; Steve
> Langasek and myself have consistently argued against it, and I doubt
> we're the only two.
Yes, I think that licensor-oriented choice of venue clauses in free software
licenses are at best a bug, and at worst make the license fail the intent of
However, the ftpmasters appear to disagree, and the practical consequences
of these clauses do not appear so great (nor so persuasive) that I feel the
need to insist there's been an error.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.