On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been no substantiated > criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including CDDL'ed code.
If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make sure that it does stand on it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or Debian) that they do accept it as an open source free license. > 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. The question IMO has never been wether Sun's intentions were good or not, it's the execution that sucks. Sun had perfectly good intentions, it was just not executed well with a good majority if GPL will not allow or accept it. The fact that this is not clear and that some say CDDL code can't be used with GPL code is certainly a problem in itself. As a member of the CAB, don't you find that annoying for our community? -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
