Erast Benson writes: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote: >> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote: >> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once >> > it >> > > stabilizes? >> >> > Yes. >> >> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with >> DFSGs? >> >> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :) >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris >> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken > > World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces > community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such thing. It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular, those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts have changed. For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that? Does Sun represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]