Re: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) for Debian
I'm not sure I understood everything, but at least I interpreted it so
that I should try to download the software and see which license terms are
exactly coming with it. So that's what I did, and I think now the
situation is clear:
1. "4. Governing Law. This License is governed by the
laws of the United States and the State of California,
as applied to contracts entered into and performed in
California between California residents. In no event
shall this License be construed against the drafter. "
So that I understand I would place myself under californian juridiction.
2. below the actual license terms are the actual caveats:
" JAXB RI contains following Sun software products:
1. XML Schema Object Model 20050225
2. Java Activation Framework 1.0.2
3. Sun Multi-Schema Validator 1.2.2
XMLSchema Object Model 20050225 and Sun Multi-Schema Validator 1.2.2 are
governed by the Binary Code License Agreement including its applicable
Supplemental Terms and Conditions ("BCL").
Additional copyright notices and license terms applicable to portions of
the Software are set forth in the Third Party License Readme file.
Use of the JSR 173 Streaming API for XML (StAX) Specification is subject
to a license from BEA Systems available at
So, it looks for me like I can forget about it (AFAIK the BCL is
definitively not free).
So, unless someone has a different opinion, I'll drop it definitively.
Thanks for the help, Eric
> On Tuesday 25 October 2005 16:39, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
>> I wanted to know if the CDDL  is an acceptable license, before I
>> possibly try to package jaxb from  for Debian. I didn't find this
>> license under .
>> Thanks, Eric
>> PS: I'm *not* on the list.
>>  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
>>  https://jaxb.dev.java.net/
>>  http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
> You can find some license summaries collected at . Also try reading the
> comments about CDDL at . The main concerns with CDDL version 1.0 are:
> * the choice-of-venue clause appended (you should accept of course) - you
> prone to be trialed/ sued for no good reasons in exotic
> jurisdictions /possible legal bombs triggered by some lawsuit sharks/
> * impossibility to apply anonymous modifications
> A possible resolution seems to be a per-case basis, but again it is too
> from feasible to predict how a certain jurisdiction will change/evolve
> the time. I personally dislike such possible hard-to-predict legal
> The best resolution (for me) is to wait for the next version of the
> Sun will possibly re-think these buggers over the time I hope... as they
> improved the old solaris licenses if I recall corectly...
>  http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/threads.html