>from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, 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. 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". > >Their rationale is explained. >I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling >people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the >term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to >civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest >"strong-willed". Thanks in advance. Well, if you compare this with their statement on the Apache license: This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.) If you look at other licenses, I think the strong wording in the case of the CDDL shows a bias. (Note the absense of linking in the Apache case; it is used in certain other cases; the GPL, of course, does not refer to linking nor is such a thing well-defined) Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org