On 8/22/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means > > > derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. > > > But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be > > > licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means > > > "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL > > > compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the > > > GPL. > > > > > > > That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible > > is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed > > GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code > > become this way. Then the people that made the most original > > contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the > > original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's > > the principle of the matter. > > But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible > and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you have misunderstood me. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
