Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
- To: Dalibor Topic <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Sven Luther <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
- From: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:55:51 +0200
- Message-id: <20050908135551.GB24644@localhost.localdomain>
- In-reply-to: <432042EC.email@example.com>
- References: <20050907001650.GA4110@localhost.localdomain> <E1ECnus-0003Wafirstname.lastname@example.org> <20050907003910.GA4306@localhost.localdomain> <email@example.com> <20050907124759.GD1676@keitarou.queanbeyan.bubblesworth.net> <20050907214815.GA23389@tennyson.dodds.net> <20050908081450.GA21495@localhost.localdomain> <20050908090612.GC28013@tennyson.dodds.net> <20050908123005.GA23549@localhost.localdomain> <432042EC.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> >packages which comes with this clause :
> >9. MISCELLANEOUS.
> > The application of the
> > United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
> > of Goods is expressly excluded.
> That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses.
> I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses
> as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar.
So, is this non-free or not ?
> >So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just
> >it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for
> >letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ?
> I guess it was a mistake.
So, we need either to get back the old star version, or somehow kick the whole
thing out of debian and into non-free ...
> star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the
> license to CDDL. The respective change was at
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change
> did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on
> CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL.