Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:45:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer: > > > Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibility of CDDL-1 > > > and GPLv3 (others on this list will know if you are), then the > > > combined work is non-free: Its license terms discriminate against a > > > field of endeavour, namely developing a parser generator. > > > > I don´t understand this. > > > > I understand the exception > > > > | As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains > > | part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work > > | under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a > > | parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof > > | as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute > > | the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this > > | special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting > > | Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public > > | License without this special exception. > > > > so that it allows distributing the software under any other license as > > long as the generated parser isn´t a parser generator in itself. > > > > I don´t think that the parser in here is a parser generator. As far as I > > understand parser_gram.c and parser_gram.h just parses loadable workload > > descriptions. > > It is less clear than I thought. […] > The true question is, of course, whether a court would judge in favour of > the exception's letter or its intent. > > If it judges in favour of its intent: Taking the CDDL'ed filebench for A > and some modified version B of A, by copyleft (of both the > GPL-and-exception and the CDDL) we have the same license situation in B as > in A. Now if B is as above, the exception is not applicable and thus > (assuming that GPL and CDDL are incompatible) B is not distributable. Thus > the combined licenses forbid distribution of (some) modified versions and > the package is non-free. > > If the court judges in favour of the exception's letter, then your upstream > can put parser_gram.c and parser_gram.h under the CDDL and everything is > fine (You can't do that yourself, because > A: the exception grants that right only to the creator of the larger work > and B: if upstream does not exercise the right of the exception, then they > do not have the right to distribute filebench under anything other than > the GPL.) > > I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, et cetera.
Thanks a lot for your detailed explaination. I forwarded the question upstream and to the FSF licensing team. (See my other mail, I kept debian-legal in Cc.) Ciao, -- Martin Steigerwald - teamix GmbH - http://www.teamix.de gpg: 19E3 8D42 896F D004 08AC A0CA 1E10 C593 0399 AE90 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201207030949.27903...@teamix.de