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. --- Nic Suzor nic@suzor.com http://nic.suzor.com 2B5F 5A21 7F3A D38E 99C0 7BC4 A2BA 7B79 B7E1 0D1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature