> On Monday 07 August 2006 02:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > The CDDL can stand on its merits and there has been > no substantiated > > criticism; clearly Apple is fine with including > CDDL'ed code. > > If this is the case, Sun should back it up and make > sure that it does stand on > it's own, and get a statement from the GPL folks (or > Debian) that they do > accept it as an open source free license.
The FSF already states that the CDDL is a "free software license," but they of course can't resist making a few "jabs" at it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses "Common Development and Distribution License (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. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, 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"." -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
