To my understanding,  CDDL'd code cannot be included in BSD or GPL'd
Software. GPL'd Software cannot be included in CDDL'd software.

However, you can include BSD'd code in CDDL'd software.

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)
>
>