>from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about CDDL:
>
> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
>it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
>GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
>while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
>terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So,
>a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
>legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this
>reason.
> Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual
>property".
>
>Their rationale is explained.
>I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling
>people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the
>term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to
>civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest
>"strong-willed". Thanks in advance.
Well, if you compare this with their statement on the Apache
license:
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL
because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL:
it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not
require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are
inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible
with the GNU GPL.)
If you look at other licenses, I think the strong wording in the
case of the CDDL shows a bias.
(Note the absense of linking in the Apache case; it is used in certain
other cases; the GPL, of course, does not refer to linking nor is
such a thing well-defined)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
