Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 August 2006 01:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > They use pretty much the same jabs for the Apache 2 license.
>
> Understood, as they do MPL, and others.
But the MPL is unacceptable by private persons as it request a vevue in Santa
Clara CA.
> My concern is not so much the way that the FSF looks at the license even, my
> concern is that pockets of the open source community are not accepting our
> license. Maybe my concerns are invalid, but if any licensees of CDDL are
> facing any type of problem, it can't be good.
Mybe we should inform the FSF that the GPLv2 is a non-free license in case
someone makes use of GPL §8. The GPL is not as "shining" as many people
claim....
> Do you suggest waiting for GPLv3 to see if it is compatible with CDDL? Seems
> we loose that much more time in doing so.
Waiting for the GPLv3 is not the right way to go. The GPLv3 may take another
year and we need to find a solution within weeks or a few months.
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
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
