Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> debian-devel re-added.
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:50:15 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:54:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > and to the best of my knowledge, works licensed solely under the
> > > > CDDL have never been accepted in main.[1]
> > > star | 1.5a57-1 | oldstable | source, alpha, arm, [...]
> > > star | 1.5a67-1 | stable | source, alpha, amd64, [...]
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.5a57-1/star.copyright
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350624
> > Quoting from the bug log, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > | The CDDL mightn't be the best license in the world, and isn't GPL
> > | compatible, but it's still DFSG-free. Closing this bug with this
> > | message.
> > I do *not* agree that the CDDL meets the DFSG, especially when a choice
> > of venue is in place.
>
> That a poster to debian-legal doesn't think a license meets the DFSG
> isn't particularly useful information, and is even less so when that
> poster isn't a DD, a maintainer or someone in the n-m queue.
It's not like there aren't DDs who feel that it isn't DFSG free; Steve
Langasek and myself have consistently argued against it, and I doubt
we're the only two.
That said, can the ftpmaster who approved the inclusion of star in
main speak up and give their rationale?
Don Armstrong
--
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his
character, give him power.
-- Abraham Lincoln
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: