[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License of Open Solaris CDDL

Thanks for the wdiff files. None of the parts commented on previously
seem to have changed much, so I agree that each piece of software under
this licence should be checked.  Key things to look at are the extent
of the "descriptive text" claimed for section 3.3 and what venue terms
are given in the notice. The venue part of the licence (section 9) may
actually be worse in 1.0 than in the draft, but it depends on the notice.

In my opinion, the licence does not follow the DFSG if there are
active patents on the Covered Software.

I note Matthew Garrett's comment about identification, but I'm not sure
if 3.2 means the notice must identify You against your wishes.

In short, I think it's not nice, but maybe could meet DFSG.  A *lot*
better than old Solaris licences, as Stuart noticed.

> I am not going to package any software under that license. I just want
> to know, if installing, running and using software under such license is
> ethically right thing to do.

If it's not about debian, it's probably off-topic for debian-legal.
I'll stop here and suggest you discuss user ethics on gnu.misc.discuss
or similar.

Reply to: