Re: Debian and CDDL and DFSG
On Monday 07 August 2006 17:02, Martin Man wrote:
Please do not cc me on replies to debian-legal.
> 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 don't think there is official statement too, but you can see some concerns
from past discussions .
> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
> "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
Right, but rebuttals like Myth<1>  doesn't work either. So, each author can
specify whatever venue they prefer, but there are people which dislike exotic
jurisdictions (jurisdictions changes, and there is no way to know them all
along with their habits). I've been told about a contra argument: having
stipulated c-o-v clause the author can protect his right better since he can
do that in his jurisdiction. the contra argument is that he can do that in
his jurisdiction even without c-o-v patch clause to the license. Also noone
explained why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case, e.g. discriminating
against people who dislike c-o-v patch clauses ?
I agree that Myth<2>  is actually a myth.
Ok, I have some questions for you, seems like you should be able to give an
authoritative answer (this does not make CDDL 1.0 non-free, of course):
* Is CDDL 1.0 incompatible with GPL v2 ?
* If it is incompatible, what makes it incompatible and why it has been done
Thanks for your replies.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB