This is becoming a remarkably persistent meme on these boards, and
it's high time that people stopped repeating it.  It is quite clearly
false, as you can see by, heh, reading the licenses:

CDDL 3.1: Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make
          available in Executable form must also be made available in
          Source Code form and that Source Code form must be
          distributed only under the terms of this License.

GPL 2.b: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
         in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
         or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge
         to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Note that these requirements are incompatible for software the derives
simultaneously from CDDL-licensed and GPL-licensed programs.  The GPL
requires that derived works be licensed under the GPL, and the CDDL
requires that "Covered Software" [*] be licensed under the CDDL.

* "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.

Since the developer making the derived work isn't capable of changing
the license of the original parts, these requirements cannot be
simultaneously fulfilled.  End of game.

But note that these requirements are SYMMETRICALLY incompatible.  It
is not the "fault" of either license.  In fact they say essentially
the same thing.

So stop with the pathetic FUD and start reading your licenses before
flaming about them.  Sun could have included an exception for the GPL
(as did the MPL 1.1, from which the CDDL is derived) but they clearly
chose not to for political reasons.  The GPL, which was written back
when "Solaris" was the product name of a BSD variant everyone called
SunOS, can't reasonably be expected to have forseen this kind of
conflict.  Maybe GPL v.3 will include something to handle linkage
against other copyleft licenses; you'll have to ask the FSF.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to