...and here we go again! :-) But yes, it is bad that nobody legal from SUN never contacted FSF and didn't ask to clarify those misleading statements... Its never too late folks!
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 22:02 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > This is fairly damning I think : > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > > Clearly it dictates : > > Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) > > This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has > some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It > requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only > requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation > for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL > and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We > urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. > > Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual > property". > > > Given this sort of perspective being rolled out by the FSF and similar > things being said by members of the Debian project I am wondering what value > the CDDL has anymore. It seems to be fuel for a funeral pyre built by those > that would criticize the CDDL and no one can argue the impact of public > opinion. Turning a blind eye is hardly a reasonable approach here. > > Is there validity to these statements being printed by the FSF or is this > all simply more FUD that no one responds to ? > > Dennis > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
