Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
This is relevent for the following reasons:
- the CDDL is a file based license.
If you have the GPLd code in different files, the CDDL does not
put any restrictions on GPLd code.
- The GPL does _not_ say that the binaries need to be put under the
GPL; it only requires to also publish the sources.
As you see, there are no incopatible requirements.
> > - 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).
???
See above, if you mix all possible problems we will never get to a result.
This is why I try to discuss all aspects separately.
> > - 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.
NO, it would be illegal because it would violate a law.
> 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.
If you again talk about additional restrictions, the CDDL does not impose
any additional rerstriction on GPLd code as long as you keep the code
in different files.
> > 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.
It makes not sense to discuss strange law concepts. I am living in Germany and
I look at what I may do. From a discussion with my publisher (Springer),
the permissions derived from the "wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat" are widely
enough....
> 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).
Let us not talk about things that may be valid in minor parts of the
world. I am living in Europe and the European Copyright system seems to be
permissive enough. And BTW: Euroe has more inhabitants than the US.
> > 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 why I proposed to first look at cases where definitely no derived
work is created.
> > 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.
I did have a discussion with specialized lawyers about Urheberecht
and I did have a very specific discussion with a lawyer when I was trying
to sue two companies for violating the GPL a few years ago...
> > 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.
Please try to understand what I did write:
While I am the only person who currently maintans mkisofs, I own only
about 40% of the code. This is why I used the mkisofs example.
I don't have the right you claim me to have.
> 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).
I do not like license exceptions and I do not like dual licensing.
This is why I did find a way to combine GPLd code and CDDLd code for
my projects.
Other people just need to carefully read the GPL to find a way to go.
The GPL has not been written by a lawyer and for this reason, it misses
a lot of definitions and this way allows to do things that RMS might not
like to see but that make life easier in a OSS world as you might fear.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
