Re: [Fwd: Debian and CDDL and DFSG]
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 17:01, Martin Man wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
> > Martin Man <Martin.Man@Sun.COM> wrote:
--cut--
> the original package in question was cdrtools by Joerg Schelling, Joerg
> was claiming that debian refuses to upgrade to a newer version of his
> sources because of CDDL, and because I could not believe his statement,
> I'm trying myself to get the information clarified (FYI: debian stable
> of course ships latest available stable cdrtools)
The problem is the obscure mix of GPL and CDDL licensed code (hence my
previous question to what degree these are compatible). See bug #377109 for
full explanation:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
this has been beaten to death, the clear resolution is to dual-license the
whole product under GPL/CDDL and it all be fine.
> but more generally, the code at opensolaris.org (not necessarily kernel)
> is and will be probably mostly licensed under CDDL, because CDDL is
> more commercial friendly than GPL (pretty much the same way as APL is),
> so my question was about any code that is CDDL and might be useful for
> debian (SMF[1] comes to my mind as an example)
You seem to be confusing commercial and proprietary usage. For example Red Hat
and Novell go commercial with GPL. Anyone can do that with Debian if s/he
wants. Turning a free software into proprietary one is a regression.
--
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
Reply to: