Get APLawrence.com by RSSDefinitely Not an Answer to Questions about Solaris 10
Sat Dec 4 18:32:00 2004 Definitely Not
an Answer to Questions about Solaris 10
Posted by Tony Lawrence
Search Keys: solaris
Referencing:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/12/03/HNsunopensourcelicense_1.html
Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) was published this week. It's a license for.. well, that's the point: Sun isn't saying. They've offered a license, but haven't said what products it will cover.
That's a smart way to float a trial balloon. This might be the license they intend to use with Open Source Solaris 10, but they haven't actually said so. By being close-mouthed, they
- Generate more press attention for Solaris 10 because of the "mystery"
- Get to hear what the reaction would be if they did choose this license
- Avoid negative publicity about any bad aspects of the license (at least for now)
How neat. Of course it is a "bad" license (at least from Linux folks point of view), but so what? That doesn't make Solaris 10 bad, because they haven't said what its license will be.
Clever, I think.
Drag had some extended comments on this:
I don't think that it's bad, and usually I am a GPL fan type guy. The only real thing that makes it uncompatable is the patent thing, I beleive. See here: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html Basicly it's the same license that Mozilla uses. They did clean it up and simplify it a bit, though, and solved a couple issues with it. If you take the code and redistribute binaries you have to make the source code freely aviable. It's non-viral, unlike the GPL and like the LGPL, so you can incoporate the code into a larger body of work without having to change the larger body of work to a compatable license, however the cddl-licensed code and modifications have to still have the same license. The major reason that it would be incompatable with the GPL is that it has a patent termination clause. If you sue somebody for violating a patent and base your claim on CDDL code the person using your suing is using, you lose the right to use and distribute the CDDL code yourself. However GPLv3 is suppose to have some patent protection clauses incorporated into it to, and the GPLv2 has a specific provision that makes it compatable with future GPL versions. So even though the CDDL is now incompatble, it seems likely to me that in the future it will be compatable with Linux/GPL'd code. At least thats my understanding. I am not completely sure and since I am not a lawyer this is not a reliable opinion. It's just my personal observations. All in all this is a pretty decent license. Much better then I would of hoped for. Hopefully the bugs get worked out quickly and Solaris is released under it. Execuative summary of why's behind modifying the MPL license is avaible at http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html Under FSF standards (see: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html ) the MPL is a valid Free, but not GPL compatable license. --Drag
Linus Torvalds has some opinions also.
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
I sell and support
Kerio Mail server
Click here to add your comments
Comments
---December 5, 2004
I don't think that it's bad, and usually I am a GPL fan type guy. The only real thing that makes it uncompatable is the patent thing, I beleive.
See here: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
Basicly it's the same license that Mozilla uses.
If you take the code and redistribute binaries you have to make the source code freely aviable.
It's non-viral, unlike the GPL and like the LGPL, so you can incoporate the code into a larger body of work without having to change the larger body of work to a compatable license, however the cddl-licensed code and modifications have to still have the same license.
The major reason that it would be incompatable with the GPL is that it has a patent termination clause. If you sue somebody for violating a patent and base your claim on CDDL code the person using your suing is using, you lose the right to use and distribute the CDDL code yourself.
However GPLv3 is suppose to have some patent protection clauses incorporated into it to, and the GPLv2 has a specific provision that makes it compatable with future GPL versions. So even though the CDDL is now incompatble, it seems likely to me that in the future it will be compatable with Linux/GPL'd code.
At least thats my understanding. I am not completely sure and since I am not a lawyer this is not a reliable opinion. It's just my personal observations.
All in all this is a pretty decent license. Much better then I would of hoped for. Hopefully the bugs get worked out quickly and Solaris is released under it.
Execuative summary of why's behind modifying the MPL license is avaible at http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html
--Drag
---December 5, 2004
I don't think that it's bad, and usually I am a GPL fan type guy. The only real thing that makes it uncompatable is the patent thing, I beleive.
See here: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
Basicly it's the same license that Mozilla uses.
If you take the code and redistribute binaries you have to make the source code freely aviable.
It's non-viral, unlike the GPL and like the LGPL, so you can incoporate the code into a larger body of work without having to change the larger body of work to a compatable license, however the cddl-licensed code and modifications have to still have the same license.
The major reason that it would be incompatable with the GPL is that it has a patent termination clause. If you sue somebody for violating a patent and base your claim on CDDL code the person using your suing is using, you lose the right to use and distribute the CDDL code yourself.
However GPLv3 is suppose to have some patent protection clauses incorporated into it to, and the GPLv2 has a specific provision that makes it compatable with future GPL versions. So even though the CDDL is now incompatble, it seems likely to me that in the future it will be compatable with Linux/GPL'd code.
At least thats my understanding. I am not completely sure and since I am not a lawyer this is not a reliable opinion. It's just my personal observations.
All in all this is a pretty decent license. Much better then I would of hoped for. Hopefully the bugs get worked out quickly and Solaris is released under it.
Execuative summary of why's behind modifying the MPL license is avaible at http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html
Under FSF standards (see: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html ) the MPL is a valid Free, but not GPL compatable license.
--Drag
---December 5, 2004
---December 5, 2004
I don't think that it's bad, and usually I am a GPL fan type guy. The only real thing that makes it uncompatable is the patent thing, I beleive.
See here: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
Basicly it's the same license that Mozilla uses. They did clean it up and simplify it a bit, though, and solved a couple issues with it.
If you take the code and redistribute binaries you have to make the source code freely aviable.
It's non-viral, unlike the GPL and like the LGPL, so you can incoporate the code into a larger body of work without having to change the larger body of work to a compatable license, however the cddl-licensed code and modifications have to still have the same license.
The major reason that it would be incompatable with the GPL is that it has a patent termination clause. If you sue somebody for violating a patent and base your claim on CDDL code the person using your suing is using, you lose the right to use and distribute the CDDL code yourself.
However GPLv3 is suppose to have some patent protection clauses incorporated into it to, and the GPLv2 has a specific provision that makes it compatable with future GPL versions. So even though the CDDL is now incompatble, it seems likely to me that in the future it will be compatable with Linux/GPL'd code.
At least thats my understanding. I am not completely sure and since I am not a lawyer this is not a reliable opinion. It's just my personal observations.
All in all this is a pretty decent license. Much better then I would of hoped for. Hopefully the bugs get worked out quickly and Solaris is released under it.
Execuative summary of why's behind modifying the MPL license is avaible at http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html
Under FSF standards (see: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html ) the MPL is a valid Free, but not GPL compatable license.
--Drag
---December 5, 2004
---December 5, 2004
---December 5, 2004
I don't think that it's bad, and usually I am a GPL fan type guy. The only real thing that makes it uncompatable is the patent thing, I beleive.
See here: http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
Basicly it's the same license that Mozilla uses. They did clean it up and simplify it a bit, though, and solved a couple issues with it.
If you take the code and redistribute binaries you have to make the source code freely aviable.
It's non-viral, unlike the GPL and like the LGPL, so you can incoporate the code into a larger body of work without having to change the larger body of work to a compatable license, however the cddl-licensed code and modifications have to still have the same license.
The major reason that it would be incompatable with the GPL is that it has a patent termination clause. If you sue somebody for violating a patent and base your claim on CDDL code the person using your suing is using, you lose the right to use and distribute the CDDL code yourself.
However GPLv3 is suppose to have some patent protection clauses incorporated into it to, and the GPLv2 has a specific provision that makes it compatable with future GPL versions. So even though the CDDL is now incompatble, it seems likely to me that in the future it will be compatable with Linux/GPL'd code.
At least thats my understanding. I am not completely sure and since I am not a lawyer this is not a reliable opinion. It's just my personal observations.
All in all this is a pretty decent license. Much better then I would of hoped for. Hopefully the bugs get worked out quickly and Solaris is released under it.
Execuative summary of why's behind modifying the MPL license is avaible at http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html
Under FSF standards (see: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html ) the MPL is a valid Free, but not GPL compatable license.
--Drag
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar