On Monday 10 July 2006 20:31, Joerg Schilling wrote: > George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary > > (Executable Versions) form! > > There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL > do not require contradictory conditions...
You must give the licensee a copy of GPL: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. But CDDL imposes further restrictions which are incompatible with GPL. You are changing your positions way too fast. In a previous message you said: <cite1>Both, the CDDL and the GPL are _source_ licenses. </cite1> And: <cite2>They both _allow_ binary redistribution under certain conditions but it is definitely wrong to even think about: "under what license might the resultant binary be". There is no "binary license for the project" but there is a permission to distribute/use binaries under certain conditions. </cite2> Now you write: "There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL do not require contradictory conditions..." I bet that your next conclusion will be: It is definitely wrong to even think about: "under what license might the resultant binary be produced by source files where some of them are being licensed under GPL'ed and the rest are under the CDDL". Your only sane choice is to dual license the whole projects of yours under CDDL and GPL. Thus licensees either accept the CDDL and ignore GPL, or accept GPL and ignore CDDL for both the source code and executables. > > CDDL 1.0 says: > > > > 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions. > > ... > > > the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You > > distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different > > license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ > > from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer > > or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and > > every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or > > such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer. > > > > > > So someone must decide the license of the distribution of the Covered > > Software in Executable form. Also this sort of indemnification is insane, > > but that is perfectly clear. > > .... > > > I don't think Debian can fulfil the requirements of this License (CDDL > > 1.0) because of indemnification mentioned above (at least) for the > > Executable form of the Covered Software (1.4. Executable means the > > Covered Software in any form other than Source Code.) > > You have been very unclear with your text, so I may only comment the part > where you have been unambiguous. You imply that CDDL is unclear and ambiguous (since my text was being parts quoted from the CDDL and I think it has very clear wording. > If Debian is in fear of the last two sentences from CDDL ยง3.5, then I see > only one possible reason: > > Debian is planning to distribute the binary in a way that causes harm to > the original developer or contributors. It boils down to how this hypothetical "harm" would be claimed and interpreted in your jurisdiction after user accepts your CDDL choice-of-venue-patched license. That's it is not acceptable for me as an end user. > This gives a deep look inside Debian..... Fix your baseless squint looking then. Anyway, I'm not a Debian Developer and can not talk on behalf of the Debian Project, but as a Debian user I can contribute to that discussion talking for myself. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
