On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me. > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > > > what? you think if it is non-GPL than it should go to non-free? > > > > This is nonsense. > > > > > > No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work > > > creates a work that cannot be distributed by anyone else but the > > > copyright holder. > > > > It seems to be an offtopic here, but could you please elaborate a > > little bit further, which particular statement of which license > > prevents it? > > It's pretty obvious if you read the CDDL and the GNU GPL, but just to > make it abundantly clear for those who don't read licenses for fun: > > CDDL 3.1 requires that Covered Works made available in Executable form > requires the Source Code form to 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 CDDL > drafting that this was done by design. [See the video of the Solaris > discussion 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.]
Thanks for explanations. I knew that they are incompatible but I never fully understood why. Its clear now. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
