Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
>
> > If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand
> > that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of
> > code
> > licensed under the CDDL.
>
> No, that is not clear, and IANAL and neither are you it seems.
>
> While this aspect of the GPL has not been taken to court, AFAIK, most
> legal folks go under the assumption that the licenses are incompatible.
The fact that some people without legal knowledge claim a general unspecific
incompatibility should not be taken for serious.
With the same way of thinking, a lock and a key may be called incompatible
because you cannot put the lock _into_ the key. The same key could be put
into the same lock.....without a poroblem.
Lawyers carefully look at the licenses and tell you different things.
Eben Moglen (at the press conference for a early GPLv3 draft) did explain
why there is no need for the "OS exception" in the GPL and that GPLd code
may use non-GPLd code.
The GPL only prevents you from using GPLd code in a non-GPL project (called work
in compliance with the copyright law). The GPL does not prevent you from using
non-GPLd code from a GPLd project. The latter is allowed because this way, no
non-GPLd code becomes a "derived work" of the GPLd code.
Do not listen to the people who like to tell you that there are problems
because you cannot put the lock into the key.....understand that the GPL
is a heavily assymetric license.
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]
