On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:25:23 +0200 Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> 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