On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:55:36PM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: > Sven Luther: > > <That said, i was told there is not much userland CDDLed stuff to consider, > and > that basically we have only the OpenSolaris kernel, with a GNU userland to > consider, and this scenario doesn't include any problem about CDDLs GPL > compatibility, only some legal reservations on debian's part concerning the > choice-of-venue and choice-of-law clauses.> > > Are you saying that Debian is willing to consider the OpenSolaris kernel even > though it is licensed under the CDDL?
The licence needs to be analyzed, and things like the choice-of-venue may cause problems. I skimmed over the past CDDL anaylisises in debian-legal, and altough i am not sure what version of the CDDL where concerned, i was under the impression that the CDDL should be reinterpreted each time it is used, since there are clauses which if used can make the whole non-free. More to this later. > Since Sun is so closely tied to the Solaris kernel, regardless of how the > license is worded, I hope our most highly respected free-software developers > could appreciate the fact that America is a crazy place when it comes to > litigations (if you don't, just utter the following words: Merck, Vioxx, > Angleton, Texas, $253 million . . .), thus, perhaps Debian could consider a > "Solaris kernel" exception wrt to the choice-of-venue and choice-of-law > clauses? Exactly because America is such a crazy place, i don't think an exeption is possible, since nobody either from debian or the companies which provide us bandwidth, hosting or hardware (and sun was among them, not sure if it still is), or even individual users are ready to take the chance to get sued in some random US court by some random trigger happy guy with lot of money at their disposal. Remember the SCO case for example. Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
