Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then doesn't that just make the CDDL the very GPL like ?
It would still allow people to use CDDLd sources together with any other
type of code.
> My understanding of the CDDL is that is as deliberately a file based
> license and as such the clause you request can't be possible because
> every file is unique. The whole point of this requirement for CDDL is
> to allow mixing of open and closed source and picking and choosing at a
> file level rather than the project level that the GPL requires. If you
> don't like that then maybe the GPL (maybe GPLv3) is better suited for
> your needs.
But this way, the constraint to publish modified versions of the CDDLd parts of
the code would make more sense.
> While I would strongly encourage people to release as much as they can I
> don't think it is appropriate to change the CDDL to require this.
Just think of someone who takes the ON sources, removes all Makefiles
and later re-published the sources.
Also note that it may be that a distributed version of a modified CDDLd source
may be useless without having the Makefiles and knowing the compile flags.
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]
