On Sep 7, 2005, at 15:27, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, ...
>
> Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, as it would be called, having a OpenSolaris 
> kernel and
> a GNU userland is not concerned by the GPL incompatibility of the 
> CDDL, but
> solely on the non-freeness of the CDDL, which seems to involve right 
> now the
> controversial choice-of-venue clause. At least if you want that effort 
> to be
> part of debian, and not create your own thing apart from it.

Well, we're not changing the CDDL any time soon, so I suggest we hold 
the discussion on OpenSolaris.org for now.

>
> Now, my opinion is that the choice-of-venue clause problem should be 
> cut in
> two, and leave the choice-of-venue to the defendant, as seems to be the
> default in international contract law, but it would be nice to have 
> real legal
> advice on this. This would be akin to old-time duels, where the 
> defendant had
> choice of weapons :).
>
> In any case, the choice-of-law is more important and can be set without
> problems in the licence.

I suggest we leave this discussion for now as the debate is a matter of 
opinion rather than of demonstrable legal issue and we'll not get it 
sorted any time soon.

>
> The second point would include creating a mixed userland of OpenSolaris
> and non-OpenSolaris userland, where GPL or LGPL compatibility of the 
> userland
> tools would be a big plus to easily intermingle the various apps and
> libraries, but not an absolute need, and is a complicated mess due to 
> all the
> licences considered.

While the licensing space is a fraction more complicated than in Debian 
now, as long as there are no showstoppers it seems to me it should be 
possible to progress.

>
> So, my recomendation is the following :
>
>   1) for the OpenSolaris kernel, change the CDDL to not include
>   choice-of-venue.

I'll explore the possibilities but as I say don't hold your breath as 
it's deeply subjective.

>
>   2) use a different GPL/LGPL compatible licence for the userland, or 
> possibly
>   a dual licenced CDDL/<insert random GPL compatible licene> solution. 
> All
>   userland projects (mozilla, Qt/KDE, OpenOffice), have gone for 
> something
>   such.

What would need to be licensed in this way? Build scripts?

> I am still not sure for the potential of using GPLed kernel drivers 
> with the
> OpenSolaris kernel, as i am not familiar enough with the technical way 
> the
> OpenSolaris kernel operates, but as long as there is a clear interface 
> between
> the kernel and modules, the derivative-work-thingy will not cross this
> boundary, anymore than it does for linux modules.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>


Reply via email to