Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means
> > derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses.
> > But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed
> > under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with
> > the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one
> > that says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL.
> >
>
> That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible
> is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed
> GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code
> become this way. Then the people that made the most original
> contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the
> original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's
> the principle of the matter.
But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible
and not making the GPL CDDL compatible?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
