On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:22AM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:52:04AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
> > On Sa
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:52:04AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 03:46:31PM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >
> > > We're discussing what constitutes "code not goverened by the
> > > terms of this license", so u
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 03:27:34PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > Between these four sections -- 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, and 3.6 -- it is not 100%
> > clear what the intention (in a legal context) of the licensing as it
> > applies to a "Larger Work" must be. Granted, it sure looks like no
> > othe
- Original Message -
From: "Chad Perrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michel Talon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Virally licensed code in FreeBSD kernel
>
> Between these four
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:02:28PM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> Are you arguing for the pleasure of arguing or have you read the CDDL?
Why, yes, I have read the rest of it. In fact, if you read further back
up the thread, you'll see that I quoted section 3.6 and discussed its
relationship to s
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 03:46:31PM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>
> >
On 4/15/07, Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:01 AM 4/14/2007, Colin Percival wrote:
>GPL/CDDL taint doesn't cross dynamic linking.
Richard Stallman claims it does. The proposed Version 3 of the GPL makes it
even more explicit.
Look... instead of letting this degenerate into one
At 10:01 AM 4/14/2007, Colin Percival wrote:
>GPL/CDDL taint doesn't cross dynamic linking.
Richard Stallman claims it does. The proposed Version 3 of the GPL makes it
even more explicit.
--Brett Glass
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://list
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 09:09:46PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:55:39PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> > >> Brett Glass wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So CDDL does not require to license
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 01:27:15PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:27 PM 4/14/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >No, you are not. Because it appears that the whole thing is not covered
> >by the CDDL.
>
> Read the license. If you distribute a product that includes the code, you are
> bound
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 09:09:46PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:55:39PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> >> Brett Glass wrote:
> >>
> >> So CDDL does not require to license add-ons under CDDL, GPL does. In
> >> this terms, FreeBSD is basically a
At 12:27 PM 4/14/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, you are not. Because it appears that the whole thing is not covered
>by the CDDL.
Read the license. If you distribute a product that includes the code, you are
bound by the obligations listed in the license (to distribute source code, not
e
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 06:55:39PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
>> Brett Glass wrote:
>>
>> So CDDL does not require to license add-ons under CDDL, GPL does. In
>> this terms, FreeBSD is basically an add-on to the ZFS module ;-).
>
> The most relevant part of the CDDL seems
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 10:47:09AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:12 AM 4/14/2007, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> >How is this any worse than the GPLed stuff in /usr/src/contrib?
>
> It's in the kernel. And the announcement went as far as to say that
> it is "part of FreeBSD."
>From what I've seen th
On 14/04/07, Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:55 AM 4/14/2007, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
>Example:
>You create a binary from two source files.
>
>1. one BSD one CDDL. If you distribute this binary, you have to provide
>the CDDL part (and all modifications to it) as source under CDDL
>l
Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:55 AM 4/14/2007, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
>
>> Example:
>> You create a binary from two source files.
>>
>> 1. one BSD one CDDL. If you distribute this binary, you have to provide
>> the CDDL part (and all modifications to it) as source under CDDL
>> license. You are not
At 10:55 AM 4/14/2007, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
Example:
You create a binary from two source files.
1. one BSD one CDDL. If you distribute this binary, you have to provide
the CDDL part (and all modifications to it) as source under CDDL
license. You are not required to provide the source of the
Brett Glass wrote:
> There is a huge problem in that the CDDL is "viral." It "infects"
> products with which it is combined.
This is why zfs isn't part of GENERIC. We've distributed tainted
kernel modules for a long time, and there's nothing wrong with that
-- GPL/CDDL taint doesn't cross dynamic
Brett Glass wrote:
> There is a huge problem in that the CDDL is "viral." It "infects"
> products with which it is combined. You can read the text of the
> CDDL at
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
>
> Section 3.1 of the CDDL is the portion which is essentially equivalent
> to the
At 10:12 AM 4/14/2007, Bill Moran wrote:
>How is this any worse than the GPLed stuff in /usr/src/contrib?
It's in the kernel. And the announcement went as far as to say that
it is "part of FreeBSD."
--Brett
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://l
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:23 -0600
Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a huge problem in that the CDDL is "viral." It "infects"
> products with which it is combined. You can read the text of the
> CDDL at
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
>
> Section 3.1 of the CDDL
There is a huge problem in that the CDDL is "viral." It "infects"
products with which it is combined. You can read the text of the
CDDL at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
Section 3.1 of the CDDL is the portion which is essentially equivalent
to the GPL.
This is part of the nastines
Brett Glass wrote:
> I just read with some concern the announcement that Sun's ZFS has been
> integrated into the FreeBSD kernel. This would mean, unfortunately, that
> FreeBSD is now covered by the CDDL, which is a viral license similar to
> the GPL. Has FreeBSD abandoned its longstanding practice
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:21:41PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> I just read with some concern the announcement that Sun's ZFS has
> been integrated into the FreeBSD kernel. This would mean,
> unfortunately, that FreeBSD is now covered by the CDDL, which is a
> viral license similar to the GPL. Ha
24 matches
Mail list logo
