Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote: Why do dou restart a discussion that has already been resolved in September 2009?
On Feb 01, 11 16:34:03 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@gmail.com> wrote:
simply dual licensing his software and instead prefers to troll the web over this issue.
A dual CDDL / GPL license would indeed be extremly helpful also from my point of view.
There is no need to make the code dual licensed as the current situation is perfectly legal. Making the code dual licensed would however result in problems that could be avoided.
Sorry, but you seem to be insufficiently informed about the legal background. There is a single person who claims that there is a "legal problem" with the original software, but that person did never send any legal proof for his claim.
We would not need to discuss this age old issue, if we had a dual license in place to just confirm that there is no problem. Currently, we are unsure, if you want your CDDL-licensed work to be linkable with GPL-licensed work. If you want to give this discussion a happy-ending you can say "let's go dual". This may seem redundant to you, but not to everybody else.
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries and the FSF did not send any legal warning for the existence of OpenSolaris. Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
Conclusion: you ask for a fix to a non-existent problem. The uncertainty is the well-existing problem. It needs fixing, please help us with that one.
Trusting in "hints" to external review authorities may or may not be sufficient for everybody. I cannot say, we have not tried. A courtesy from the copyright-owner would be a much stronger token.
I do not understand you..... What do you expect more than the confirmation from the copyright holder that there have been _varios_ legal reviews that all resulted in: "no problem" and the confirmation from the copyright holder that there is no problem? Also check: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility http://www.osscc.net/de/licenses.html#compatibility http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html http://www.osscc.net/de/gpl.html and the papers from various international lawyers and even a professor of law who is at both the Freie Universität Berlin and the university of San Francisco, see the links from that pages. Suse earns money with my software, so if there still is any doubt, Suse could do the same as Sun and Oracle did: pay a specialized lawyer for a review. It is really strange to see that all lawyers I am talking about this topic confirm my statements while you as a laymen seem to have doubts. I do not only speak with German lawyers, but also with US lawyers - one of them is sitting a few offices besides me......so I have ehough time for an in-depth discussion. If you still insist in claiming to see a problem, I get the impression that there is FUD against my project.
What we however need, is some sort of defense against attacks against OpenSource projects that are only based on libel and slander.....
This one is unclear to me. I fail to see how a license could protect against being badmouthed.
Not a license could protect but reasonably acting people. We have a _social_ problem that has been introduced by a person acting hostile against OSS and that is a laymen in law. You need to understand that you have been a victim ov attacks od that person. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org