Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then doesn't that just make the CDDL the very GPL like ?
It would still allow people to use CDDLd sources together with any other type of code. > My understanding of the CDDL is that is as deliberately a file based > license and as such the clause you request can't be possible because > every file is unique. The whole point of this requirement for CDDL is > to allow mixing of open and closed source and picking and choosing at a > file level rather than the project level that the GPL requires. If you > don't like that then maybe the GPL (maybe GPLv3) is better suited for > your needs. But this way, the constraint to publish modified versions of the CDDLd parts of the code would make more sense. > While I would strongly encourage people to release as much as they can I > don't think it is appropriate to change the CDDL to require this. Just think of someone who takes the ON sources, removes all Makefiles and later re-published the sources. Also note that it may be that a distributed version of a modified CDDLd source may be useless without having the Makefiles and knowing the compile flags. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org