On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in > >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for > >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL > >project just because of that. > > > >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ > > And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL. > > This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will > lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity. > > Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it. > > Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license.
On the contrary, if cdrtools were truly dual-licensed, it wouldn't have to have been forked. It's not, however, and that's not something Debian can fix The issue with cdrtools is a very specific one. cdrtools is not dual-licensed, but instead contains files distributed under 3 different licenses. Some people (Joerg, evidently Sun legal since Sun ships it) feel this mix is legal. Others (Debian, Red Hat's legal team, probably others but I've quit paying attention ;-) feel the mix is illegal and that therefore a fork from the last legally licensed version was legally necessary for them to be able to distribute it cdrtools just isn't the generic proof of CDDL-GPL conflict you and others portray it as. It's a very specific example of the confusion that arises when you mix different licenses on different files within the same project.... later, chris _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
