Re: fresh review of: CDDL
"Henri Sivonen" <email@example.com> wrote in message
[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">news:[🔎] email@example.com...
On Sep 9, 2005, at 22:16, Joe Smith wrote:
[...] o 1.13. "You" (or "Your") means an individual or a legal
exercising rights under, and complying with all of the
this License. For legal entities, "You" includes any entity
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
For purposes of this definition, "control" means (a) the
direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of
entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership
than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or
ownership of such entity.
By the way, this (b) seems an unusual definition of control. When
I've seen this defined for cybercrime, it's usually the executive
directors, not the majority shareholder too. I don't think it has
clear implications for meeting DFSG, but it smells odd. Is it
usual in the US to class all companies someone owns more than half
of as an extension of that person?
Um... The phrasing there talks about legal entities.
Legal entites are things like corporations not people.
Note that the word control is used only under the section speeking about
legal entities, not individuals.
It is very normal in the US to class all companies of which a legal
entity owns more than half as an entention
of the legal entity.
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
I personally read this as if company A owns (at least 50.00000000001% of )
company B then for the purposes of the licence Company A==Company B.
Nothing paricularly non-free seeming about that. Heck it means that moving
code between subsideriaries is not distribution, which could be helpful to
So I think this clause is a non-issue.