On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 04:40:34PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
>
> > Joerg, as a piece of friendly advice, I think it would be wise to drop
> > it. You continue to do your reputation harm by going around making this
> > claim. Does Debian's fork somehow harm you? Does it harm your
> > software? The question to both of those is probably "no". Why not just
> > ignore it?
>
> Shouldn't the people in the Debian project be interested in preventing the loss
> of reputation caused by this unneeded fork?
>
> This fork harms the users of Debian in at least two ways:
>
> - the fork does not work decently and thus annoyes them
>
> - the fact that other Debian maintainers does not try to
> find a workaround for the problems caused by some outcasts
> causes damage to the reputation of the Debian project.
>
I guess you missed Aurelien's mail [0]? What about the other distros?
They clearly see a problem as well, as Aurelien pointed out.
> > this point has been explained to you multiple times. Additionally, both
> > the FSF and Sun have agreed that while the CDDL is in fact free, it is
> > *not* compatible with the GPL.
>
> Missquoting Sun and the FSF is not the way to deal with problems caused by
> unproven accusations.
>
I would hardly call it misquoting:
[1] Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it
has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents.
So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL
cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL
for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual
property".
[2] Common reasons for incompatibility
When checking licences for compatibilty, here are some specific
issues to look for that would make a licence incompatible with
GPLv3 (as of draft 2).
* Requirements about attorney fees
* Waiver of the right to trial by jury
* Jurisdiction requirements (disputes must be settled in a
certain country or in accordance with the laws of a certain
country)
Licences which are incompatible with GPLv3 (as of draft 2) for the
above reasons include the MPL, CDDL, CPL, EPL, academic free
license, open software license.
Even Sun says so [3]:
We have carefully reviewed the existing OSI approved licenses and
found none of them to meet our needs, and thus have reluctantly
drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License,
version 1.1 (MPL). We do appreciate the issue of license
proliferation, however, and have worked hard to make the Common
Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as reusable as possible.
Additionally, we have attempted to address the problems we perceived
in existing open source licenses that led us to conclude that reusing
those existing licenses was impractical.
We chose to use the MPL as a base ...
Now, the MPL has been around for a long time. It has also been known
for a long time that the MPL is not GPL compatible.
> unproven accusations. Note that I am waiting for an explanation for the
> pretended "problems" since January 2006.
> Note that what I like to see is a cleanly written list of problems
> and a clean list of quotes from the GPL and probably the OSI rules
> that prove the claims. What I've read so far was a list od incorrect (modified)
> "quotes" from the GPL...
>
> As long as nobody is able to prove the claims made by Mr. Bloch and "friends",
> we could carefully asume that they are void.
>
Have I provided enough for you above? I don't get why you persist in
your argument when both sides have via *public* means stated the exact
opposite of what you are claiming.
>
> Also note that I am not attacking people but only trying to inform about the
> truth while Mr. Bloch is constantly publishing personal attacks.
>
>
> > Again, Eduard refuted every single one of your claims of "problems" in
> > the Debian cdrkit. Please feel free to prove him wrong (with a
> > technical argument, not a personal attack).
>
> You should try to inform yourself with facts instead of believing claims
> from Mr. Bloch. I am sure you did never try out the original and compare it
> with the fork....
>
So, in other words, you are not able to refute his claims?
Regards,
-Roberto
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00188.html
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses
[3] http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature