Subject: Re: Licensing: CDDL vs. GPL vs. BSD
To: None <timh@tjhawkins.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <hubert@feyrer.de>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 01/26/2005 03:07:28
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 timh@tjhawkins.com wrote:
> However, you can include BSD'd code in CDDL'd software.

How will that work, given BSD's license item #1 and CDDL#3.2?
That would require changing the license of the BSD code, which is in 
contrast to BSD#1:

BSD#1:
  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

CDDL#3.2:
      The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are
      governed by the terms of this License. You represent that You
      believe Your Modifications are Your original creation(s) and/or You
      have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this
      License.


  - Hubert


>
> Sun choose a license that they think will less likely fork, but with a
> little more corporate freedom than the GPL gives (IMHO)
>
> Thanks,
> Tim Hawkins
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hubert Feyrer" <hubert@feyrer.de>
> To: <netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:20 PM
> Subject: Licensing: CDDL vs. GPL vs. BSD
>
>
>>
>> [Thoughts from http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/blog.html#20050126_0151]
>>
>>
>>   I was wondering if the much-rumored new Open Source license from Sun --
>> called CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) -- was
>> compatible with the BSD license used in NetBSD. After there was some
>> discussion about the start of OpenSolaris.org on slashdot, I had a look.
>> As to my understanding (IANAL!), the CDDL is similar in spirit to the GPL:
>>
>>     1. All source (changed and unchanged) must remain available under the
>>        original license (GPL#2, CDDL#3.1)
>>     2. Any modification must happen under the original license (GPL#2b,
>>        CDDL #3.2).
>>
>> And as such, the CDDL doesn't seem to be compatible with the BSD license
>> as it enforces releasing of the source code (CDDL#3.1). Presence of a
>> viral component (CDDL#3.2) won't help to this either. See also my posting
>> on Slashdot about this.
>>
>> Digging deeper in the OpenSolaris.org Licensing FAQ, there's aparently a
>> way to release binaries under a different license, plus the CDDL is
>> file-based, so for mere integration of CDDL-source into Larger Works, the
>> modifications to the CDDL to interface with the other code need to be
>> published. Of course that only helps as long as the CDDL doesn't need to
>> get modified for that. Relevant parts of the CDDL seem to be #1.9A-C for
>> the "licensing on a per-file" base. For the "release binaries under
>> differenc license" statement, #3.5 says that but also states that the new
>> license must not take away any rights that the CDDL grants, so I don't
>> think one can make a binary-only distribution without releasing (modified)
>> sources.
>>
>> Comments welcome!
>>
>>
>>   - Hubert
>>
>> --
>> NetBSD - Free AND Open!      (And of course secure, portable, yadda yadda)
>>
>>
>

-- 
NetBSD - Free AND Open!      (And of course secure, portable, yadda yadda)