On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> > The GNU GPL only allows this when it is possible to satisfy the
> > conditions of the GPL for the distributed work. For example, this
> > is why it is possible to combine MIT licensed works with GPLed
> > works.
>
> Your assumption is made on wrong general prerequisites.
>
> The CDDL definitely does not have any requirements on "other" code
> as it is a clearly file based license. For this rerason, your
> statements (below) on the CDDL are wrong.
Neither license has anything to do with files. The licenses work the
same regardless of whether you have a single file with sections under
multiple licenses or multiple files each under a single license.
> Other claims often made about the GPL when talking about the GPL
> cannot be found in the original GPL text, viloate the law and thus
> are void.
Violate which law(s)? Realize of course, that we're talking about
distribution in multiple countries here, of which Germany is just one.
> The GPL includes no text that is related to GPL projects that
> include/use non-GPLd code. As the GPL in general permits to use the
> code, this is a permitted use.
The direction is irrelevant. It's just as valid to say that you've
taken the "Schilly makefile" project (CDDLed) and added to it GPLed
code. If what you're saying where actually the case, it would make the
GPL meaningless.
> Note that you simply cannot create a license that tries to enforce
> conditions on other people's code because this would be illegal.
You missunderstand what the GPL (and to a lesser extent the CDDL)
does. It doesn't *force* you to satisfy the conditions; it *prohibits*
you from distributing the GPLed code when you cannot.
GPL 2 directly addresses this:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
derivative or collective works based on the Program.
> Many people forget about the law and about the original intention of
> the FSF when talking about the GPL. Unless you asume that the FSF is
> acting like Microsoft, it is obvious that the intention of the FSF
> it "only" to prevent the GPLd code from disappearing in CSS projects
> and to keep it free. Both do not apply to code under the CDDL
> because the CDDL is a free license that itself tries to prevent the
> code from being made non-free.
The intention of the GPL is to keep code that is GPLed Free Software
that preserves the Four Freedoms; in order to do this, restrictions
which are not present in the GPL are not allowed to be placed on GPLed
works. This, as a side effect, makes it incompatible with the CDDL.
That the licenses have similar philosophical backgrounds is great, but
doesn't affect whether they are compatible or not.
> See above: The GPL (see GPL § 2b) only requires the whole work to be
> distributed under the GPL in case that a non-GPL project tries to
> use GPL code. The GPL does not contain any text that could cause the
> assumption the GPL tries to enforce restrictions on non-GPL code.
2b does not distinguish between these cases at all.
> > direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the
> > drafting of the CDDL that this was done by design. [See the video
> > of the Solaris discussion at Debconf 6 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.]
>
> This is of course wrong - sorry. Please stop distributing wrong
> claims.
Nothing that I've said above is incorrect. You may disagree with what
the people who told me have said, but that has nothing to do with me
reporting what I've heard. Contact Danese Cooper if you want to debate
this more completely, as she is the one who said this.
> The reason for not using the GPL for OpenSolaris is simple: The GPL
> (if used for OpenSolaris) would not allow Sun to create the "Sun
> Solaris Distribution" from the OpenSolaris sources.
Sun owns the copyright. Nothing keeps them from doual licensing that
code under multitple licenses. Indeed, nothing keeps you from dual
licensing the "Schilly makefiles" either, assuming you actually own
the copyright on them.
> I should mention that not all CDDL/GPL combinations are possible and
> that a European Author has the right to create more legal
> combinations than a US Author has. This is a result of the archaic
> US Copyright law. This does however not limit the
> re-distributability of the code as the USA accept the European
> "Urheberrecht" (which is much more than just the US Copyright law)
> if the Author is European and European countries accept the US
> Copyright law if the Author is a US Citizen.
That's the first I've ever heard of that argument; can you provide a
case law citation? In any event, it's quite likely that some of the
authors of code upon which cdrtools is based are (or were) US
Citizens, so this argument (even if it is backed by US case law) isn't
particularly convincing.
> All C-based projects are compiled by the sub-project "Schily
> makefiles" but this is "mere aggregation" as the "Schily makefiles"
> do not appear in the final binaries and as the code could be
> compiled otherwise.
Mere aggregation means that you can remove the "Schilly makefiles" and
still have the resultant work function in the same way as before. If
it doesn't, it's clearly not mere aggregation.
Allow me to quote from GPL 2 again:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part
of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution
of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and
thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> The license change is the result of 2 months of hard work.
>
> Many people have been asked for their legal impression (even many
> people from Debian) and nobody was able to proove with facts that my
> understanding of the license issues is not correct.
I've gone ahead and spent time here to completely delinate as
precisely as I am capable of why Debian is not able to distribute
cdrtools as it stands. Whether you agree with my assesment is entirely
up to you, but hopefully you see that many different people from
Debian who would prefer to see cdrtools in Debian have analyzed this
situtation and come to a similar conclusion.
Dual licensing the code in question would both enable us all to
continue on with more important things.
Finally, allow me to note that it's not Debian who needs to convince
you; this discussion is entirely about whether Debian can distribute
cdrtools or not. That decision is up to Debian and specifically the
maintainers of cdrtools in Debian, the tech-ctte, and/or the
Developers as a whole.
> As neither the CDDL nor the GPL enforce any restrictions on other
> code [1], somebody who likes to redistribute binaries just needs to
> follow the rules of all related source code.
>
> [1] If the GPL would try to enforce restrictions on other code, the
> GPL would be a non-free license (see DFSG §9).
You are misreading DFSG 9. DFSG 9 sits on exactly the same line that
the GPL agregation exception sits, which does not apply here because
of GPL 2.
Don Armstrong
--
"There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."
-- Bach
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature