Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is becoming a remarkably persistent meme on these boards, and
> it's high time that people stopped repeating it. It is quite clearly
> false, as you can see by, heh, reading the licenses:
>
> CDDL 3.1: Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
> available in Executable form must also be made available in
> Source Code form and that Source Code form must be
> distributed only under the terms of this License.
>
> GPL 2.b: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
> in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
> or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge
> to all third parties under the terms of this License.
>
> Note that these requirements are incompatible for software the derives
> simultaneously from CDDL-licensed and GPL-licensed programs. The GPL
> requires that derived works be licensed under the GPL, and the CDDL
> requires that "Covered Software" [*] be licensed under the CDDL.
Let me help you to understand this text:
- The CDDL is file based and the CDDL allows you to use _any_ other
license for code in other files.
The only restriction the CDDL imposes is that you are not
allowed to _include_ NON-CDDL code into a CDDL based _file_
if you are not the author of the code that is going to be included
or if if you are not willing to put this code under the CDDL.
So as a comclusion: The CDDL allows to link CDDL based code together
with code from any license that does not itself prohibit linking
with CDDL code.
- The GPL is a project based license. It requires you to change the
licence of all code that is linked together to be the GPL.
As only the author of the code usually is able to change the license,
only the author of code who is willing to change his code to
use the GPL is allowed to add code to a GPL based project _or_
include GPL based code in his projects.
This is the reason why it is the GPL that prevents you to use
GPL based code in a CDDL project and not the CDDL that is
responsible for the incompatibility.
> So stop with the pathetic FUD and start reading your licenses before
> flaming about them. Sun could have included an exception for the GPL
> (as did the MPL 1.1, from which the CDDL is derived) but they clearly
I am sorry, but it seems that it's you who is involved with FUD...
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-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
