Re: CDDL

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <jmarant@free.fr>
> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.

CDDL also discriminates against agents acting on behalf of any
Contributor, thanks to section 3.4 combined with section 9:

"3.4. Application of Additional Terms.  [...] You may choose to offer,
and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability
obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Software. However,
you may do so only on Your own behalf, and not on behalf of the Initial
Developer or any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear that any
such warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligation is offered by
You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or
such Contributor as a result of warranty, support, indemnity or liability
terms You offer.  [...]  9. [...] This License represents the complete
agreement concerning subject matter hereof. [...]"

I mean, it's obvious what they were trying to do, but they cut out a
lot of potential commerce because they don't allow supplementary
agreements.

> Does anybody know if is it still a work in progress? Does anyone have
> contacts with Sun people about the issue?

Not I.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct