Subject: Re: CDDL (was Re: Star & NetBSD)
To: Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
From: David Maxwell <david@vex.net>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 02/11/2005 11:36:02
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> David Maxwell <david@vex.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Maxwell <david@vex.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also - from the first entry in the FAQ:
> > > >
> > > > "We wanted a copyleft license that..."
> > > >
> > > > That section 3.1 is definitly viral. That's incompatible with NetBSD's
> > > > Goals.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The CDDL is not vial, the GPL is.
> > >
> > > The difference is that the GPL "infects" code that it is linked to
> > > with the GPL. This is not true for the CDDL.
> >
> > You cut out section 3.1, so I'll repeat it.
> >
> > "Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in
> > Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that
> > Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this
> > License."
>
> Looks like you omit 3.9 in order to "prove" your false claim about the
> viral nature of the CDDL.
The copy I'm looking at:
http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
Does not contain a section 3.9, and you seem to have missed the point.
3.1 says "You must release sources" for anything you release binaries
for.
That is incompatible with the BSD license.
--
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution
when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering,
unthinking mass. This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your
boss about everything you read on BugTraq! - Signal 11