On Saturday 08 July 2006 06:15, Don Armstrong wrote:
> NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > what? you think if it is non-GPL than it should go to non-free?
> > > > This is nonsense.
> > >
> > > No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work
> > > creates a work that cannot be distributed by anyone else but the
> > > copyright holder.
> >
> > It seems to be an offtopic here, but could you please elaborate a
> > little bit further, which particular statement of which license
> > prevents it?
>
> It's pretty obvious if you read the CDDL and the GNU GPL, but just to
> make it abundantly clear for those who don't read licenses for fun:
>
> CDDL 3.1 requires that Covered Works made available in Executable form
> requires the Source Code form to be distributable only under the CDDL;
> CDDL 3.4 disallows additional restrictions. CDDL 6.2 (patent
> retaliation) is a restriction not present in the GPL.
>
> GPL 2 requires all of the work when distributed together to apply to
> the GPL. GPL 6 dissallows additional restrictions. GPL 2c is a
> requirement not present in the CDDL.
>
> As you can see, they're incompatible with eachother in either
> direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the CDDL
> drafting that this was done by design. [See the video of the Solaris
> discussion if you want to see someone talk about it; you can also see
> me discussing this issue and others as well in the same video.]
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing question. While it
is clear now that Debian can not distribute a product when some of its parts
are under GPL and the rest are under CDDL ('and'), is it fine to
double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole product like Perl does with GPL |
Artistic, so either the whole thing is under GPL or the whole thing under
CDDL as accepted by the licensee. In short, could you double license under
two incompatible licenses ? Should be fine imho, since licensee accepts just
one of them, and does not the other one.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
