On 09/17/14 03:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nikola M. <[email protected]> wrote:
This is not correct: The CDDL is file based and you are allowed to add new
files that you may keep secret. You however need to publish everything you
modified and that was under CDDL.
You are wrong again: adding a file is not a patch. The CDDL uses a file based
scope and thus adding files is ermitted under any license.
I understand. I agree and thank you again for clarifications, seems that
I misread your second sentence.
Of course we agree that "everything you modified in CDDL" must be
published, but one could use other files that he does not publish, if he
really wants to.
I am focusing of course - only on that part where CDDL code IS changed.
The GPL is work based - everything from a work (except the makefiles and
similar) needs to be under the GPL.
The CDDL is file based. Any CDDL file must stay under CDDL.
The BSD license is line based, you may add new lines of code under a different
license if you mark these lines.
Thank you for this quick comparative, it is really easy explained.
You are missinterpreting the CDDL.
THe text you quoted allow authors of new code in new files to declare them to
be patches and thus to put them under CDDL. This is however not the default.
Yeah you are right, by "results from an addition to, deletion from or
modification of the contents of a file" is actually defining what
patches are.
I think we thought the same thing expressing it differently.
Or the difference exist because I think CDDL forces treating files that
change previous code as patches and you maybe say, that treating files
that change existing code as patches is - optional?
I don't think text i quoted only allows - I think it _requires_ to treat
files that change previous code as contribution and that it is Not
optional. That is how copyleft works anyway anything one change is
destined to be glued into next release (except of course additional
files that do not change anything in previous code).
So there are 2 types of files, ones that change something in previous
code and others that do not.
They cannot change the license of code they do not own and aprox. 1/3
of the code in "hsfs" is owned by me because I was not payed for that
code and because I did not sign a contract that transfers the code to Sun.
If that is such obvious, maybe they could just make a deal and monetize
to you your parts since trey are using it in Solaris 11.
Maybe you could ask them for compensation since they are obviously not
following CDDL and not releasing S11 source code in any part. Maybe
reaching some ground could be Ok for them, results of talks disclosed or
not.
I have to mention, we have seen some source code leak at the S11 release
time (with CDDL all over it, probably still is, bu it is unknown outside
Orcl circles) so one can compare what they actually had inside at a time.
It was strongly advised Not to look at it or reading it for reasons of
spoiling one's brain with something one can't use openly. Yet, I needed
to mention it :P
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
