Ferdinand O. Tempel wrote: > Some time later another thread appeared about a broken dream. In it > there was an explanation of why Debian thinks the CDDL isn't DFSG > compliant. Given the wording of the message I kinda assumed > (apparently wrongly) that it was actually a somewhat official Debian > stance of the CDDL vs. DFSG. It wasn't as it appears, which means > the game is still open. Which it was in the firstplace because as I > also said earlier, there's *nothing* keeping anyone from bolting > Debian on an OpenSolaris base. You just don't get to call it > Debian/OpenSolaris.
Yes, It was my fault. I accepted the message of a single guy at debian-legal as the Debian official reply. I have queried them again about it. > BTW, while we're on the subject anyway, would you mind where you got > ÿour information" in "My information is that Debian did accept the > CDDL as a free license." and whether or not it's relevant in > relation to the discussion DFSG vs. CDDL? Because it's not so much a > problem that it's an OSI approved free license, but that it might > (or not) be DFSG incompatible. If it's deemed DFSG incompatible, it > pretty much rules out an "official" Debian port. Yep, you are right. Hopefully it will be DFSG compliant. I still think the Debian architecture for OpenSolaris could be really interesting for many people. -- Greetings, alo. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
