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.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de		(uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de	(work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily