Thank you all for your detailed answers.
Indeed, sounds like we will need some lawyer advice...
My gut feeling is that we are going with the BSD license with day one. I am
relatively new to open source myself (Been developing most of my work on
closed source UNIX systems and windows), but I hope to catch up very soon.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <
m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM, son goku wrote:
>
>> Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!!
>> It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every
>> serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism
>> inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that
>> because
>> of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel
>> all
>> over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed
>> compared to dtrace.
>>
>> I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to
>> mind...) or BSD do? Or there are no such modules anymore...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> http://www.sun.com/cddl/
>
> -
> http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
>
>
>-
>
>*1.3. “Covered Software”* means (a) the Original Software, or (b)
>Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software
>with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions
>thereof.
>
>
>
>-
>
>*1.6. “Larger Work”* means a work which combines Covered Software or
>portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.
>-
>
>
>-
>
>*3.6. Larger Works.*
>
>You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other
>code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger
>Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the
>requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software.
>
> --
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
> http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt
> http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/
> http://www.opensolaris.com/licensing/opensolaris_license/
> http://www.netbeans.org/cddl.html
> http://www.openmediacommons.org/CDDL_License.html
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version
> 1.0<http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt>
>
> This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's
> similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it
> incompatible with the GNU GPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>. This
> means 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/not-ipr.html>
> ”.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License
> http://soundadvice.id.au/blog/2005/02/04/#cddl
>
>
> ===
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/
>
> *If I use code licensed under the CDDL in my proprietary product, will I
> have to share my source code?*
>
> Yes, for any source files that are licensed under the CDDL and any
> modifications you make. However, you don't need to share the source for your
> proprietary source files.
> ===
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/114839/
>
>
>
> I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my opinions does NOT have any legal value .
>
> In short , CDDL does NOT require to disclose your OWN proprietary sources ,
> BUT ONLY requires to explicitly supply CDDL licensed parts with any changes
> applied to them with respect to CDDL license .
>
> If you are a commercial entity my suggestion would be to seek legal advise
> from a lawyer with expertise on software licenses and copyrights .
>
>
> Thank you very much .
>
>
> Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
>
>
>
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
