On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Joerg Schilling on 2005-02-10 22:24:00 +0100:
> 
> > >   * I'm not convinced the CDDL is free of problems. I know you thinkg
> > >     different, and I'd really love to hear more opinions on this (should
> > >     probaby be discussed on this list).
> > 
> > You most likely did not yet read enough about the CDDL and it's intentions.
> > 
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html
> > 
> > The CDDL is compatible to the BSD license in both directions.
> 
> =======
> 3.1. Availability of Source Code.
> 
> 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.

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.

http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/features.html#bsd-license

"...the entire kernel and the core of the userland utilities are shipped
under a BSD licence. This allows companies to develop products based on
NetBSD without the requirement to make changes public (as with the GPL).
While the NetBSD Project encourages companies and individuals to feed
back changes to the tree, we respect their right to make that decision
themselves."

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like
mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear,
but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live
in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville