On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
> > 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.
> After reading  and discussing the issue with Joerg, it is still
> remains unclear to me why resulted CDDL + GPL licensed work can not
> be legally redistributed in Debian. Joerg actually clarified quite a
> bit and his clarifications seems more reasonable than yours, i.e.
The clarifications unfortunatly basically ignore the crux of the
rather straightforward explanation above. Indeed, what you have quoted
below is typical of the oversimplification present throughout this
discussion about what the licenses actually say, and what they mean:
> [...] Both licenses are source licenses and require to make the
> source available in case a binary is distributed. This is no
> contradiction but just the same requirement.
Regardless, both Jörg and yourself are welcome to have your own
opinion on this matter and act accordingly. What I have explained is
my interpretation, and it leads to how I would act, and how I think
Debian should act as well.
I unfortunatly do not have any additional time to spend laboriously
explaining this issue, so unless there are very specific (and brief)
arguments as to why my interpretation is incorrect, I'll stop
repeating myself (and bothering -devel) by participating further in
this discussion of ossified assertions.
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't
bet, you can't win.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240