>I agree, it would be extremely bad, but OTOH, if we're in a situation where we >can't work with open source development, due to licensing, that is pretty bad >in itself.
I think that lending credence to the handful of "CDDL is bad" distractors is bad in and of itself. We should not do that. The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been no substantiated criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including CDDL'ed code. >I think this is good, the owner of the code should have preference. Indeed; and as Joerg said, only a malicious distributor has any reason to argue with a "fixed venue" clause. The reason that people consider "choice of venue" bad is that they don't read the license and interpret it as "Sun can chose the venue". But the "choice of venue" only applies to the CDDL template; once instantiated by shipping software the venue is fixed and chosen. In contrast, all other licenses allow the the initiating party a post-facto choice of venue. That's much worse than knowing the venue when you start to use the software; or worse, when you start handing it out. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
