[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrtools

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.]

Don Armstrong

Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: