On 8/23/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the > > GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with > > other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are > > otherwise considered ethical ? > > > > The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all, > > open source licenses are also free software licenses. > > > > We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other > > free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has > > substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL > > to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements > > would stretch it all out of shape. > > If you do not mention where you see the problems, it is hard to > discuss the problems. So please name the problems from your point of view.
FSF's comments about CDDL: "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property"." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html And their usual word meaning game: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml Though you're right, I'd like to know what the "complex restrictions" are. Doesn't seem much more complex than the GPL to me... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
