Ignacio Marambio Catán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont understant your point, CDDL is mainly a file based license, that
> means you can use a CDDL licenced file inside your closed source project
> as long as you make every chance you made to that file available to the
> community, why would i, for example want the makefiles of that project
> if i dont have the rest of the souces?.
> forcing them to include things like makefiles only makes sense in
> project based licenses like the GPL
The "Urheberrecht" (let me use this word as "copyright" is not the right
translation and just a sub item of the Urheberrecht is the related law.
Also note that the Urheberrecht is used for more people than the US
Copyright. The Urheberrecht law is "work" based and not file based.
It does not look nice if people opensource a project but do not show
others how to compile it which would be legal with the CDDL.
So I would like to see that people who opensource whole projects
need to publish the build environment related files under a OSI aproved
license.
Another nice thing would be to require that people who publish binaries
based on CDDL files would need to give people the right and the possibility
to re-create such a binary and to use this binary with the same rights
as the original binary.
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
