Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
Martin Man writes:
> Forwarding once again my email, since it seems it has not gone through
> to the list for the first time.
> From: Martin Man <Martin.Man@Sun.COM>
> Subject: Debian and CDDL and DFSG
> To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:02:49 +0200
> Hi all,
> I was searching around the web regadring the $subj, but I was unable to
> find any official statement from Debian concerning the issue.
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
> If there is no such document, could I get CDDL licensed software to
> main? Should I ask first debian-legal? what would be the answer?
> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
> "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
Choice of venue provisions are often argued to impose fees upon
redistribution. The fee-shifting provision seems even more
problematic to me. The contract construction clause worries me to a
lesser extent -- it seems superfluous but not necessarily harmful.
Some people argue that forced self-identification (section 3.3) is
If you want an "official statement from Debian" one way or the other,
you will probably need to find a sponsor for a general resolution; as
far as I know, Debian has not appointed anyone with specific power to
decide such questions in general. FTP-masters have the power to
decide in particular cases by accepting or rejecting packages in NEW,
but that is based on their judgment and not an official position.
(Not a Debian Developer; not a lawyer)