Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, comments like Debian would obviously be anti-social and not trustworthy don't encourage me to try to have a conversation about this with you; you don't decide what does or doesn't meet Debian's standards anyway, it's Debian itself that does this. The fact that you behave this way makes it hard to believe that you are interested in a discussion at all. If you did like a discussion, you did send arguments before. As you still did not send arguments, it is obvious that your intention is not to have a discussion about the compatibility of a license but something else. It would be a nice bonus if we happened to convince you that the issues with the CDDL are real issues and you reconsidered your licensing as a result; but this bug is about whether Debian can accept CDDL-licensed works in main, not about whether you agree with that decision. If you like to convince people, you need to use arguments. This is something that you failed to do for more than 10 weeks. Note that if you like to discuss such issues, you need to follow written down rules unless you like to make Debian behave untrustworthy. From your statements, the conclusion still must be: There is no problem with the CDDL and DFSG and thus there is no bug. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are neither the submitter of the bug nor the package's maintainer. Please read hmm, somehow the above (quoted) mail reached Joerg Schilling, but not the BTS. I give it here for reference (with control messages removed): = You are neither the submitter of the bug nor the package's maintainer. Please read http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer.en.html, especially the following part: Normally, the only people that are allowed to close a bug report are the submitter of the bug and the maintainer(s) of the package against which the bug is filed. ... When in doubt, don't close bugs, first ask for advice on the debian-devel mailing list. I didn't see a message from you on debian-devel. If you did send one, I apologize: please send me the message-id, so I can lookup the discussion and the final decision The reasons that I didn't push this further are: a) The maintainer explained that he is working on it. b) A stable update was imminent and I didn't want to put more load on release managers and ftp-admins. Thomas = Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
More than 10 weeks have passed and nobody was able to name a part of the CDDL and explain why it should be incompatible with the DFSG. It is obvious that the CDDL is compatible with the DFSG. 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
Processed: Re: Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: close 350624 Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided 'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing. Bug closed, send any further explanations to Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. You are neither the submitter of the bug nor the package's maintainer. Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. Please read Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. It has been proven that there is no bug. Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. Please lern some social competence and understand that the fact that this Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. Too many unknown commands, stopping here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 350624 Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided Bug reopened, originator not changed. quit Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
reopen 350624 quit On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 08:41:05PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: More than 10 weeks have passed and nobody was able to name a part of the CDDL and explain why it should be incompatible with the DFSG. Sure, comments like Debian would obviously be anti-social and not trustworthy don't encourage me to try to have a conversation about this with you; you don't decide what does or doesn't meet Debian's standards anyway, it's Debian itself that does this. It would be a nice bonus if we happened to convince you that the issues with the CDDL are real issues and you reconsidered your licensing as a result; but this bug is about whether Debian can accept CDDL-licensed works in main, not about whether you agree with that decision. It is obvious that the CDDL is compatible with the DFSG. It's obvious that *you* think it's compatible, but then, you're licensing your software under the CDDL, so I hardly think you're an unbiased party to this discussion. On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:14:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: I will keep closing the bug unless someone is able to send a proof for the original claim The bug submitter, the package maintainer, and a member of the release team have all disagreed with your assessment that the bug should be closed. Providing proof that you accept is not required here; whether you agree with our reasoning or not, you don't have standing to overrule the decisions of the relevant parties within Debian. If you keep closing this bug, I will ask the BTS admins to restrict your access to BTS control functions. Please leave the bug status alone and let the discussion run its course. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:23PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Let us try to avoid generic discussions that are not related to star. Show me the exact art of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. As it seems that most people do not know the text, here are the links: The CDDL has been approved to be compatible with this: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The DSFG is here: http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract If you compare the both texts, you will find that the CDDL has been verified against a text that is gradually more strict than the DSFG. Note that in case Debian tries to enforce rules that are not written down properly, it looks as if Debian is acting with arbitrariness. Debian is applying human judgement when interpreting a set of guidelines. Only the OSI has ever claimed that the DFSG are a suitable set of rules that can be applied literally and mechanically to licenses to determine their freeness; Debian never has. I am sure you have no authority on Debian and I hope that you are not speaking for the majority in Debian. You still did not answer my question: Show me the exact part of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. And a hint: if Debian really does not follow the Debien DFSG on http://www.us.debian.org/social_contrac but rather follows your arbitrariness, Debian would obviously be anti-social and not trustworthy. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 01:25 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. Well, I believe I understand them quite well. OTOH, I don't consider this problem to be about my understanding, so let's drop this. If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would be anti-social. Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. Given the vast number of packages in Debian and assuming every package had a license like that, every Debian user would have to know the jurisdictions of almost every country in the world -- just to be able to decide wether installing this package is putting him at risk or not. And stuff like this just shouldn't be in main. Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 01:25 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. Well, I believe I understand them quite well. OTOH, I don't consider this problem to be about my understanding, so let's drop this. It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would be anti-social. Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to _BAD_ users. Given the vast number of packages in Debian and assuming every package had a license like that, every Debian user would have to know the jurisdictions of almost every country in the world -- just to be able to decide wether installing this package is putting him at risk or not. And stuff like this just shouldn't be in main. The CDDL is an aproved OSS compliant license. Please don't try to create FUD on the CDDL. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 16:07 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 01:25 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. Well, I believe I understand them quite well. OTOH, I don't consider this problem to be about my understanding, so let's drop this. It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. Huh? *You* were talking about the Debian rules, now you are switching to legal backgrounds? Could you please decide what you want? Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to _BAD_ users. I suggest you don't take this stuff personally; perhaps you sell the rights on the software tomorrow to someone else, who could then start to sue the users based upon your choice of venue of today. Given the vast number of packages in Debian and assuming every package had a license like that, every Debian user would have to know the jurisdictions of almost every country in the world -- just to be able to decide wether installing this package is putting him at risk or not. And stuff like this just shouldn't be in main. The CDDL is an aproved OSS compliant license. Yes, so? This is Debian, not OSI. Please don't try to create FUD on the CDDL. I suggest you reread my statements. I didn't say much about the CDDL (in fact, nothing at all; perhaps I should have chosen a clearer subject). However, you have chosen a choice of venue -- and that is the point of my bug report. OTOH, I seriously wonder why the maintainer didn't react on this one, one way or another. Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. Huh? *You* were talking about the Debian rules, now you are switching to legal backgrounds? Could you please decide what you want? You did start this discussion. I only try to explain things. Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to _BAD_ users. I suggest you don't take this stuff personally; perhaps you sell the rights on the software tomorrow to someone else, who could then start to sue the users based upon your choice of venue of today. Again: if you believe that Debian should rightfully forbid a choice of venue to authors, it does implicitely at the same time require a choice of venue for people who are infringing the rights of the author and like to sue the author. Conclusion: if Debian would act this way, Debian would be anti-social and put the authors off Debian. As a later result, there would be no free software anymore. Free Software is a curtesy of it's authors. If you take away all rights from the authors, you loose anything you have. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
On Feb 14, 4:28pm, Thomas Weber wrote: OTOH, I seriously wonder why the maintainer didn't react on this one, one way or another. Well, what sort of reacion do you expect? I'm about to upload 1.5a56 with some bugfixes backported from current deb version. Pawel -- (___) | Pawel Wiecek - Coven / Svart - | o o | http://www.coven.vmh.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED]GSM: +48603240006 | \ ^ / | GPG/PGP info in message headers * [ Debian GNU/Linux developer ] | () | * * * * 18 is actually 9.* * -- KD | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 14, 4:28pm, Thomas Weber wrote: OTOH, I seriously wonder why the maintainer didn't react on this one, one way or another. Well, what sort of reacion do you expect? I'm about to upload 1.5a56 with some bugfixes backported from current deb version. What is your intention with this attempt? The current release is 1.5a70 and a71 will come up shortly. If Debian really goes this way, it seems that I need to make public that Debian is anti-social and supporting people who like to infringe the copyright and license. Note: the CDDL clearly is a license that follows the rules from Debian. If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_ the CDDL is not following Debians rules. Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant. Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project.. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Let us try to avoid generic discussions that are not related to star. Show me the exact art of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. As it seems that most people do not know the text, here are the links: The CDDL has been approved to be compatible with this: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The DSFG is here: http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract If you compare the both texts, you will find that the CDDL has been verified against a text that is gradually more strict than the DSFG. Note that in case Debian tries to enforce rules that are not written down properly, it looks as if Debian is acting with arbitrariness. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 22:24 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Well, then you obviously need to remove _all_ GPL packets as any person could sue you anywhere in the world because of the _missing_ choice of venue. If I am not doing business there and can still be sued *without* having agreed to this choice of venue, than I am lost anyway -- a court there could very well override the choice of venue clause. A license can't protect against arbitrary jurisdictions. Debian currently includes MPL based packets in main and the MPL is definitely less DFSG compliant than the CDDL. Just for the record: MPL is considered non-free by most Debian Developers (not sure about an official statement): http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html Could you please name a package which is a) in Debian under MPL b) not in non-free c) is not being worked on to get another license. Please note that e.g. firefox is actively being worked on (in this case: by upstream): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=330295 The fact that nobody seems to start a MPL related discussion looks like the CDDL discussion on Debian-legal has been started by some trolls who just like to discriminate against the CDDL. MPL was considered non-free even before CDDL was published. There are some very practical matters with it (keep source code online for a certain time) which make MPL a pain for every distributor, leaving issues of freeness aside. I don't mind continuing this discussion, but I suggest dropping the @debian.org addresses from CC. Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:07:07PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 01:25 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. Well, I believe I understand them quite well. OTOH, I don't consider this problem to be about my understanding, so let's drop this. It sounds as if you definitely don't understand the legal background. If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would be anti-social. Well, you want a software, where every user on this planet can be forced to travel around the globe for a lawsuit. Doesn't sound much better. This aplies _only_ to users who like to sue _me_, so this only aplies to _BAD_ users. No. The wording in the CDDL is: Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice contained within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. There is nothing in the CDDL that prevents *you* as a copyright holder from using this clause to harrass users you don't like. Exposing our users to this added risk in order to give copyright holders an additional legal protection that people have been doing fine without for decades is not a decision Debian is going to make lightly. Indeed, the list archives of debian-legal are full of in-depth discussion of this issue over the past year. Conclusion: if Debian would act this way, Debian would be anti-social and put the authors off Debian. As a later result, there would be no free software anymore. Um, I call bullshit. There are thousands (millions?) of Free Software contributors who have no problem licensing their code under the terms of GPLv2 or the BSD licenses, and we have a long precedent of these software authors largely *not* getting sued frivolously by users. In contrast, licenses with choice of venue clauses are relatively new, and some of them have been advanced by corporations that have a history of overt hostility towards Free Software, so the risks to our users of being sued by copyright holders are a complete unknown. Free Software is a curtesy of it's authors. If you take away all rights from the authors, you loose anything you have. You know, some of us actually contribute to Free Software because we believe in its goals and its methods, not because we think we're doing users a favor... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_ the CDDL is not following Debians rules. Quite simple: I want to be able to set up a server, putting main into sources.list and not having to wonder wether I just submitted myself under the jurisdiction of Kiribati (taken from the member list of the United Nations by pure coincidence). And this can happen if choice of venue clauses are allowed in main. Well, then you obviously need to remove _all_ GPL packets as any person could sue you anywhere in the world because of the _missing_ choice of venue. Please don't tell me you would never travel to Kiribati - do you know for shure that you will not like to visit your new mother in law (located in Kiribati) next year? And please stop telling me that I don't like the CDDL; this is not about the CDDL which can be used without a choice of venue clause. Of course, I cannot speak about you, but looking at the recent CDDL shows that most people who did post did not give real arguments but rather seem to be anti CDDL. Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant. In any case, this is totally unrelated to star, CDDL and choice of venue. Who was the first one to use the word FUD in this discussion? Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project.. Why, do you plan to relicense star under GPLv3? Definitely not as long as the GPLv3 still contains the permission to discriminate people. I did chose CDDL for two reasons: - Star is using source from Sun that is licensed under CDDL - I like to have star under a more kliberate license than the GPL. As a note: The CDDL is a reworked MPL and I have been in heavy discussion with Sun lawyers to make the choice of venue part modified in a way acceptable by joe author. Debian currently includes MPL based packets in main and the MPL is definitely less DFSG compliant than the CDDL. From the MPL: 11. MISCELLANEOUS. This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. As you see, all MPL programs have the choice of venue set to Santa Clara. I believe this is completely inacceptable and I am sure that private authors who use the MPL are not aware of this problem. If Debian would like to remove star, then they need to remove these packets too: http://freshmeat.net/browse/189/ Freshmeat lists 230 projects licensed under MPL. The fact that nobody seems to start a MPL related discussion looks like the CDDL discussion on Debian-legal has been started by some trolls who just like to discriminate against the CDDL. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2006, 20:29 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Note: the CDDL clearly is a license that follows the rules from Debian. See, that's exactly the point. I believe otherwise; so it isn't clear to me, at least with a choice of venue. If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_ the CDDL is not following Debians rules. Quite simple: I want to be able to set up a server, putting main into sources.list and not having to wonder wether I just submitted myself under the jurisdiction of Kiribati (taken from the member list of the United Nations by pure coincidence). And this can happen if choice of venue clauses are allowed in main. And please stop telling me that I don't like the CDDL; this is not about the CDDL which can be used without a choice of venue clause. Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant. In any case, this is totally unrelated to star, CDDL and choice of venue. Who was the first one to use the word FUD in this discussion? Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project.. Why, do you plan to relicense star under GPLv3? Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 07:18:50PM -, Pawel Wiecek wrote: Well, what sort of reacion do you expect? A sign that you are reading the bug report, which wasn't obvious to me. Something along the lines of I agree / I disagree / I don't know would be nice as well. After all, it might be possible that my opinion is completely false. Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:23PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Let us try to avoid generic discussions that are not related to star. Show me the exact art of the DSFG that you believe is incompatible with the CDDL and explain why exactly you believe that this part of the DSFG is incompatible with the CDDL. As it seems that most people do not know the text, here are the links: The CDDL has been approved to be compatible with this: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php The DSFG is here: http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract If you compare the both texts, you will find that the CDDL has been verified against a text that is gradually more strict than the DSFG. Note that in case Debian tries to enforce rules that are not written down properly, it looks as if Debian is acting with arbitrariness. Debian is applying human judgement when interpreting a set of guidelines. Only the OSI has ever claimed that the DFSG are a suitable set of rules that can be applied literally and mechanically to licenses to determine their freeness; Debian never has. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
It seems that you did not understand the Debian rules. If Debian would really require people to be allowed to sue the Author of free software at any place on the earth, Debian would be anti-social. 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
Bug#350624: star: acceptance of CDDL is undecided
Package: star Version: 1.5a57-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 -- DFSG issue In the upload of 1.5a57-1, the license was changed from GPL to CDDL (with choice of venue being Berlin, Germany). The acceptance of this license by Debian is still undecided [1] (at least to the best of my knowledge). However, forcing a german jurisdiction upon everyone installing this package without warning seems incacceptable to me for a package in main. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00025.html Regards Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
