Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not > make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise > DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather > they who hold copyright) ought to consider it. That's all I'm saying.
Ought to consider it for what, though? I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance. (It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't investigated it closely.) That's not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is its incompatibility with the GPL in a fashion that directly affects the legal viability of creating a GNU/Solaris distribution that includes GPL-covered software. We can't consider ignoring that; we don't get to ignore bits of licenses that are inconvenient. Furthermore, that provision in the GPL was specifically intended to prevent exactly what people are talking about doing, admittedly for a system libc that was non-free rather than one that is free but GPL-incompatible. The simple solution to this problem is for Solaris to change the licensing on its libc to make it GPL-compatible. The chances of changing the license on all of the GPL-covered software to make it CDDL-compatible are remote at best. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]