On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:25:23 +0200
Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The allegation was that some of it is CDDL, which is problematic.
>
> The CDDL was accepted as definitely OSS compliant by bopensource.org
> within 14 days and without to mention problems.
>
> The GPL did take a longer time to get approved because the GPL
> license text is in conflict with the OpenSource definition. The
> approval was given with a longer delay after the FSF explained that
> the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it OSS compliant.
The issue is not compliance with opensource.org or otherwise. Each
distro decides which licenses to prefer, which to tolerate and which to
not tolerate. In the Linux communities, GPL is by far the most commonly
used license, and it is accepted by virtually all Linux distros.
So if you want your software to be used by the majority of Linux
distros without license-related hiccups, you can always just re-license
it to GPL and everyone will be happy.
If, on the other hand, you have a reason to prefer CDDL over GPL
for your software, then you should also acknowledge that each
distro has an equal right to prefer GPL over CDDL, whatever the reasons.
It's democracy --- as much as you have the right to license your
software as you see fit, they equally have the right to not like your
license and to boycott your software because of it.
And there should be no hard feelings --- everyone is responsible for the
consequences of their choices. Live with it. :-)
HTH, :-)
Marko
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
