On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:21:18 +1000 Nic Suzor wrote: > 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. I agree that CDDL does *not* meet the DFSG. [...] > 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. I agree that GPLv2-compatibility is an important recommendation. Unfortunately Sun expressed dislike for the GPL in the past and intentionally designed the CDDL to be GPL-incompatible: as a consequence, I don't know how far recommending the GPL will get us... :-( Maybe another person who recommends the GPL could be useful to add "pressure" to adopt a DFSG-free licensing scheme... I don't know... -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpPc_8e7tMCM.pgp
Description: PGP signature