Alan DuBoff wrote:
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.
CDDL is an OSI approved open source license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). What other criteria are
there to make an open source license a good open source license ?
- Christof
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?
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
