-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Christoph Leuzinger wrote:

> I guess you mean 3.6:
>
> "3.6. Larger Works.
>
> You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not
> governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a
> single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this
> License are fulfilled for the Covered Software."
>
> I think this requires the "Larger Work" to be distributed with the source code
> of the parts that are governed by the CDDL. Plus, if you make changes to the
> parts covered by the CDDL you'll have to make these available to the public.
>
> So, it's kinda compatible with the BSD License. Or isn't it?

Depends on what you mean by `compatible'.

Can you use a BSD-licensed file in a project which is otherwise under 
the CDDL?  Yes.

Does the CDDL meet the needs of projects, like NetBSD which have chosen 
a BSD-style license because they want people to be able to do as they 
wish with the code?  Not even close, since users will _not_ be able to 
do as they wish with the CDDL'ed files.

Given this, it's clear that adding more files to our repository which 
the user must distribute the source of does not meet the project's 
goals, and we certainly do not intend to replace files without such a 
restriction with files with such a restriction unless there is a _very_ 
clear gain in doing so.

This does not mean that there are no cases where such a gain exists -- 
moving toward using GNU BFD instead of hand-rolled tools is one case 
where such a gain recently _did_ exist.  But the `might be nice' level 
of gain alleged to accrue from a switch from a BSD-licensed pax to a 
CDDL-licensed star doesn't seem in anywhere near the same league -- at 
least to me.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCDQyEpRpI6SYACmIRAuhUAJkBIG3joYACAzwkypsM/CNjEuYVGACg4eZB
/MgI4g/S6ybE5vllpaVXEGQ=
=hmHM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----