Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> > Did you ever read the CDDL?
>
> Not completely.
You should do it - it is even much shorter then GPLv3
> > People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation
> > of the GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with
> > other software.
>
> I didn't say the CDDL prevented this. I'm not blaming one of the other
> licence, but they are considered to be incompatible. I realise you
> believe otherwise, and you could well be correct, but those who distribute
> the software either believe otherwise or feel there is enough doubt to be
> cautious. If in doubt, don't.
There are several entities that frequently publish such unproven claims.
This sounds like marketing using the cause fear uncertaintly and doubt method.
You should not trust such entities that do not prove their claims.
> I wish your interpretation was correct, but the prevailing option is
> otherwise.
It is not my interpretation, this is the interpretation of all lawyers in the
net that are willing to explain the background of their decisions.
This interpretation is based on two basic facts:
- The CDDL was designed for best compatibilitiy with all licenses.
- The parts of the GPL that are claimed to prevent this license
combination are in conflict with the law and thus void.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
