On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jasse Jansson wrote:
When you release a work based on the Program, you may include your own
^^^ ^^^^^^^
terms covering added parts for which you have, or can give, appropriate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
copyright permission, as long as those terms clearly permit all the
^^^^^^^^^^
activities that this License permits, or permit usage or relicensing under
this License. Your terms may be written separately or may be this License
plus additional written permission. [B]If you so license your own added
parts, those parts may be used separately under your terms, but the entire
work remains under this License[/B]."
It says that it's ok to include stuff that uses another license,
but the end result is that everything is magically transformed to
GPL stuff.
This conclusion of yours seems to be without merit. Licence
transformation can occur without the copyright holders consent.
It's still the same one way street.
All it says is that the *copyright holder* may grant further
permissions *within* the context of the GPL, on those parts they have
rights to. With the GPLv2 the copyright holder would have had to
dual-licence under two seperate licences.
It's simply there to give more choice to copyright holders without
resulting in compatibility problems or dual-licencing.
Further, 3rd parties have the discretion to 'discard' those
additional permissions (but not the limited set of additional
requirements the GPLv3 also allows a copyright holder to add).
No copyright holder is ever forced to license under the GPL. If a
copyright holder decides the GPL (v2, 3, whatever) is right for them
and is happy with the above, that's their choice. The copyright
holder has other options: other licences to choose from or the choice
to simply not licence the code *at all*.
Whether or not the GPLv3 is suitable for Sun, who knows, most of us
(me included ;) ), will just have to wait and see. However v3 (draft)
does seem to have learnt from the CDDL (at least, it seems to
have moved significantly towards compatibility).
Yepp, you sure have your GPL googles on, it's pretty obvious.
Funny, I've gotten the reverse accusation a few times in the past
when I've tried to explain the standpoint of the CDDL to the
GPL-begoggled.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Cole's Law:
Thinly sliced cabbage.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
