On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, as usual, you are ignoring the vital fact that the > > combination of CDDL and GPL is something between legally dubious > > and illegal. Of course, you ca distribute whatever you want, but > > Debian is bound to legal behaviour. > > It seems that you did never read the GPL and the CDDL in depth > enough in order to under stand either of them... > > The GPL explicitely allows to use the code and it only forbids to > use GPL code in non-GPL projects. So it is obvious that the GPL > allows to use non GPL code in a GPL project.
The GNU GPL only allows this when it is possible to satisfy the conditions of the GPL for the distributed work. For example, this is why it is possible to combine MIT licensed works with GPLed works. Allow me to make it abundantly clear why the CDDL and GPL are incompatible:[1] CDDL 3.1 requires that the Source Code of Covered Works made available in Executable form be distributable only under the CDDL; CDDL 3.4 disallows additional restrictions. CDDL 6.2 (patent retaliation) is a restriction not present in the GPL. GPL 2 requires all of the work when distributed together to apply to the GPL. GPL 6 dissallows additional restrictions. GPL 2c is a requirement not present in the CDDL. As you can see, they're incompatible with eachother in either direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the drafting of the CDDL that this was done by design. [See the video of the Solaris discussion at Debconf 6 if you want to see someone talk about it; you can also see me discussing this issue and others as well in the same video.] That said, it may be possible for the copyright holder (assuming the copyright holder is a single entity) to distribute such a work.[2] It's just impossible for anyone else to distribute it without separating the incompatible bits. As a final note, the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL does not apply in this case, as the works have a non-trivial dependency relationship with eachother; they are not merely placed on the same media for distribution. Don Armstrong 1: Apologies for those who follow -devel, but I'm going to repeat the same argument here. 2: Or someone else who has some sort of unrestricted licence to one or the other half of the work. -- The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves, or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so thouroughly that it had to be condemed and later demolished. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
