Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not the issue I understood Debian to have with CDDL. I
> > understood the concern some individuals expressed to be about the fact
> > that the choice of law and venue was parameterised, allowing a user of
> > CDDL to select law and venue on a use-by-use basis in a way that might
> > change the meaning of some terms of the CDDL or work in a way that
> > rendered the license non-Free.
>
> Ah, i was not aware of this, but yes, this is an additional problem. A fixed
> choice-of-law is perfectly valid, and has been accepted as such in the past,
> it was only the choice-of-venue to be problematic.
So let me again encourage you also to have a look at the star source and
to compare the license text in star,c & acltext.c
I hope that you then will understand why it needs to stay as it is in order
to allow individuals like me to put something under the CDDL.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
