On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
No it does not, for the GPL demands that derived works be licenseable
under the GPL without additional restrictions (see section 6). Code
under the CDDL can not be taken and licensed under the GPLv2, for the
CDDL contains restrictions (e.g. the patent clauses) which the GPLv2
does not.
This is not true for several reasons (in case you do not mix code
from both licenses in a single file):
- Both licenses are source licenses and to not claim anything
about the "license" of a binary. They ony require that the
source needs to be available in case you distribute a bunary.
I'm not sure why this is relevant. I never mentioned binaries. Both
licences cover distribution of covered code regardless of form.
- The CDDL is file based and does not put any restrictions on the
GPLd code.
The CDDL expresses itself in terms of files yes. It still boils down
to derivation though (there's no point getting into a long discussion
about what might or might not constitute derivation).
- If the GPL would try to put any restriction on the CDDLd (or any
other code), then at least this part of the GPL would be illegal.
It would be invalid, not illegal.
However the GPL does not try to restrict other works, only the
original and derived works. By definition, any copyright restrictions
it imposes on such works must be valid (modulo exceptions in
copyright generally that may exist).
Exactly what constitutes derivation is (rightly) not covered in the
GPL. I can't help answer that question.
Note that in addition, a German (and most likely any European) has the right
on the "wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat".
Highly specific to one jurisdiction. If it's equivalent to fair-use,
that often can be /very/ limited, if near non-existant.
Note that I'm not saying anything at all about what fair use /is/,
only that I very strongly suspect it is not at all as cut-and-dried
as you say it is and that you, or any reader, really ought to seek
real legal advice if it is important in any way. (Same thing applies
to question of derived works).
I get the impression that you have a far too wide view from a
"derived work".
I have no view other than a vague understanding that it is very hard
to say generally.
This is the well known FUD from certain people...
It's prudence, unless you have specific legal advice to the contrary.
Note that such advice likely will be case and jurisdiction specific.
Given that and above, I don't care to try argue about derived works
further. I wish you well with your interpretation of it.
If you believe that it is not FUD, then please tell me why the
mentioned combination with mkisofs would not be OK. Note that I am
not the 100% author of mkisofs.
The author of mkisofs may do what they like with their own code - the
rights-holder obviously has no need to license rights from
themselves.
It can be slightly problematic for 3rd parties if the licence does
not clearly spell out the exception though. If only because if you're
distributing thousands of thousands of different projects it would be
preferable to have licence exceptions in writing (and hence be averse
to software with de-facto, unwritten exceptions to stated licences).
In any case, the CDDL is a free license that allows a combination
with other licenses (even BSDl). I am in hope that the GPLv3 will
finally be explicit enough with permitting code mix with other free
licenses.
That seems to be one of goal of v3 alright.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Confirmed bachelor:
A man who goes through life without a hitch.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
