On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Joerg Schilling<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private > interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license, > so the GPL is no option. Where do you get the idea that the Debian maintainers feel the GPL is not a valid OSS license? They've not maintained that either the GPL or the CDDL are non-free, they're saying they're incompatible. Again, from the webpage[1]: "While the CDDL *may* be a free license, we never questioned if it is free or not, as it is not our place to decide this as the Debian cdrtools maintainers. However, having been approved by OSI doesn't mean it's ok for any usage, as Jörg unfortunately seems to assume. There are several OSI-approved licenses that are GPL-incompatible and CDDL is one of them. That is and always was our point." The GPL is a free OSS license. The CDDL is a free OSS license. They are not compatible with each other and code licensed on them cannot be used together. Your software is problematic from a licensing perspective. The personalities of the Debian maintainers are not germane to this discussion. Please present fact-based reasons for your disagreement and justification for the use of your software in a GPL environment. Your opinions about the Debian maintainers are irrelevant. [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ -- Chris _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
