--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL > >projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a > CDDL > >failure proofs? > > No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will > fork a GNU only version. > > The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not > interesting.
Casper, from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about 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". Their rationale is explained. I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest "strong-willed". Thanks in advance. Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
