On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 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.

The copy I'm looking at:

http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html

Does not contain a section 3.9, and you seem to have missed the point.

3.1 says "You must release sources" for anything you release binaries
for.

That is incompatible with the BSD license.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution
when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, 
unthinking mass.  This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your 
boss about everything you read on BugTraq!    - Signal 11