First an important note: you seem to like to manipulate things as you
intentionally shorten the Cc: list. Please don't do this anymore, it is
very bad practice....
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
> > do not require contradictory conditions...
>
> You must give the licensee a copy of GPL:
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program),
> the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to
> copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
> the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance
> by third parties to this License.
You make the same mistake as many other people do....
This part of the GPL is not related to binary distributions, otherwise it would
mention binary distribution. Binary distribution is only mentioned in §3 of the
GPL.
As I pointed out previously, the CDDL does not enforce any additional
restriction on the GPLd source code.
> But CDDL imposes further restrictions which are incompatible with GPL.
This is wrong, see above.
> You are changing your positions way too fast. In a previous message you said:
>
> <cite1>Both, the CDDL and the GPL are _source_ licenses.
> </cite1>
You are wrong here too....
I do not change my position but I present a clear line of arguments.
On the other side, I am constantly whiping out wrong claims and I am treatened
with hourly changing strange positions from people in this list.
> Now you write: "There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL
> and the GPL do not require contradictory conditions..."
Which is correct and you did not prove the converse.
> Your only sane choice is to dual license the whole projects of yours under
> CDDL and GPL. Thus licensees either accept the CDDL and ignore GPL, or accept
> GPL and ignore CDDL for both the source code and executables.
This is what people like you like, but fortunately this is not needed.
> > > CDDL 1.0 says:
> > >
> > > 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You
> > > distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different
> > > license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ
> > > from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer
> > > or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
> > > every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or
> > > such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.
> > >
> > >
> > > So someone must decide the license of the distribution of the Covered
> > > Software in Executable form. Also this sort of indemnification is insane,
> > > but that is perfectly clear.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > > I don't think Debian can fulfil the requirements of this License (CDDL
> > > 1.0) because of indemnification mentioned above (at least) for the
> > > Executable form of the Covered Software (1.4. Executable means the
> > > Covered Software in any form other than Source Code.)
> >
> > You have been very unclear with your text, so I may only comment the part
> > where you have been unambiguous.
>
> You imply that CDDL is unclear and ambiguous (since my text was being parts
> quoted from the CDDL and I think it has very clear wording.
Wrong again and I suspect that you opnly like to deflect people from the main
problem.
> > If Debian is in fear of the last two sentences from CDDL §3.5, then I see
> > only one possible reason:
> >
> > Debian is planning to distribute the binary in a way that causes harm to
> > the original developer or contributors.
>
> It boils down to how this hypothetical "harm" would be claimed and
> interpreted
> in your jurisdiction after user accepts your CDDL choice-of-venue-patched
> license. That's it is not acceptable for me as an end user.
This is complete nonsense!
> > This gives a deep look inside Debian.....
>
> Fix your baseless squint looking then.
You seem to have very strange ideas.
The CDDL §3.5 does nothing in the last two sentences but to inform possible
distributors of binaries about the lawful rights of the author. It requires
a redistributor to accept these lawful rights in advance to a distribution.
This makes it easier for the author to defend against evil-minded distributors.
Unless you _are_ such a evil-minded distributor, you have nothing to frear from
this clause....
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
