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

Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]

Cc'ing because I forgot to look and mdpoole cc'd.  Please do not cc me
on replies to debian-legal.

Martin Man <Martin.Man@Sun.COM> wrote:
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not 
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?

There is no single document on this licence.  I'm not sure there is
consensus yet.

My notes say CDDL is copyleft, but each case needs checking for active
patents and the licensors' behaviour on identification, both of which
can make software under CDDL fail to follow the DFSG.

> 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?

What software are you wanting to get into main?
Yes, I think you should ask debian-legal, as per policy.
I won't predict the answer at this time.

> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/ 
> "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.

Different people have different opinions.  That should not surprise anyone.
We are not a group-think corporation presenting a party line.

I don't think you should dismiss the venue problem as mere FUD so quickly.
For a licensor as big as Sun to require developers to travel thousands of
miles apparently on a whim is at best abusive and at worst a fee.  If
people are misunderstanding the venue clause (remember, U is uncertainty),
then please explain, not flame.

Hope that explains,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: