Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you believe otherwise, tell me exactly _what_ you don't like and _why_
> > the
> > CDDL is not following Debians rules.
>
> Quite simple: I want to be able to set up a server, putting "main" into
> sources.list and not having to wonder wether I just submitted myself
> under the jurisdiction of Kiribati (taken from the member list of the
> United Nations by pure coincidence). And this can happen if choice of
> venue clauses are allowed in main.
Well, then you obviously need to remove _all_ GPL packets as any
person could sue you anywhere in the world because of the _missing_
choice of venue.
Please don't tell me you would never travel to "Kiribati" - do you know
for shure that you will not like to visit your new mother in law (located
in Kiribati) next year?
> And please stop telling me that I don't like the CDDL; this is not about
> the CDDL which can be used without a choice of venue clause.
Of course, I cannot speak about you, but looking at the recent CDDL shows that
most people who did post did not give real arguments but rather seem to be
anti CDDL.
> > Note-2: While the CDDL is OK, the current GPLv3 draft is definitely
> > allowing discriminaton and for this reason not DSFG compliant.
>
> In any case, this is totally unrelated to star, CDDL and choice of
> venue. Who was the first one to use the word "FUD" in this discussion?
>
> > Let us wait what whether Debian will accept a GPLv3 licensed project......
>
> Why, do you plan to relicense star under GPLv3?
Definitely not as long as the GPLv3 still contains the permission to
discriminate people.
I did chose CDDL for two reasons:
- Star is using source from Sun that is licensed under CDDL
- I like to have star under a more kliberate license than the GPL.
As a note:
The CDDL is a reworked MPL and I have been in heavy discussion with
Sun lawyers to make the choice of venue part modified in a way
acceptable by "joe author".
Debian currently includes MPL based packets in "main" and the MPL is definitely
less DFSG compliant than the CDDL.
>From the MPL:
11. MISCELLANEOUS.
This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject
matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be
unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent
necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by
California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if
any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions.
With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of,
or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United
States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern
District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County,
California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including
without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.
Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract
shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this
License.
As you see, all MPL programs have the choice of venue set to Santa Clara.
I believe this is completely inacceptable and I am sure that private
authors who use the MPL are not aware of this problem.
If Debian would like to remove star, then they need to remove these
packets too: http://freshmeat.net/browse/189/
Freshmeat lists 230 projects licensed under MPL.
The fact that nobody seems to start a MPL related discussion looks like
the CDDL discussion on Debian-legal has been started by some trolls who
just like to discriminate against the CDDL.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
