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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Problem with license of msv-xsdlib]

Eric Lavarde - Debian [Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 01:52:43PM +0200]:
> Hello again,
> Last tentative: what's wrong with my request that I don't get _any_ answer?

You did get an answer - check message from Joe Smith [Thu Sep 14, 2006
at 02:05:13PM -0400].

I agree with Joe, and believe that a CDDL licence will get you in to
non-free. However, nobody is exactly sure whether CDDL is DFSG-free and
can go into main.

The main points of contention seem to be the choice of venue clause,
the requirement to identify contributors and the restriction that
forbids moficiation of 'descriptive' text giving attribution.

The last of these objections seems wholly contextually dependent. There
will be some cases where the inability to modify 'descriptive' text will
be unduly restrictive, but I don't see this as being a major problem if
the text is in the changelogs, for example.

The first objection is policy related - I don't know whether a choice of
venue caluse is objectionable or nt.

The second objection, that of requiring identification, is also up for
debate. It fails the dissident test (the better way to achieve this is
to allow pseudonymous attribution).

If you're looking for another licence to suggest, which you know will
get into main, try the GPL. Licence proliferation is a bad thing; unless
there's a good reason not to, I would always suggest adopting a
GPL-compatible licence.


Nic Suzor
2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0
7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: