On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:10 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Another license mess. Is CDDL by itself acceptable to Fedora at all? Interestingly, I found in Google a story Rahul himself submitted to OSnews back in 2004 regarding CDDL. :-) In any case CDDL is OSI approved, but that doesn't address the real question, I guess, which is whether mkisofs is violating the terms of either the CDDL or the GPL by combining code licensed under one or the other in a larger work. I have no idea whether the mkisofs authors have modified any of the CDDL-licensed code. If someone can analyze these issues -- at least from the code perspective -- and present this as a fully-formed question, maybe we can get a good legal opinion. Until someone does a little research and present details, I doubt that would happen. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
