On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, 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.]
Thanks for explanations. I knew that they are incompatible but I never
fully understood why. Its clear now.