| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Did you ever read the CDDL? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Not completely. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
You should do it - it is even much shorter then GPLv3 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation |
| 11 |
> > of the GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with |
| 12 |
> > other software. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I didn't say the CDDL prevented this. I'm not blaming one of the other |
| 15 |
> licence, but they are considered to be incompatible. I realise you |
| 16 |
> believe otherwise, and you could well be correct, but those who distribute |
| 17 |
> the software either believe otherwise or feel there is enough doubt to be |
| 18 |
> cautious. If in doubt, don't. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There are several entities that frequently publish such unproven claims. |
| 21 |
This sounds like marketing using the cause fear uncertaintly and doubt method. |
| 22 |
You should not trust such entities that do not prove their claims. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I wish your interpretation was correct, but the prevailing option is |
| 25 |
> otherwise. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It is not my interpretation, this is the interpretation of all lawyers in the |
| 28 |
net that are willing to explain the background of their decisions. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
This interpretation is based on two basic facts: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- The CDDL was designed for best compatibilitiy with all licenses. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- The parts of the GPL that are claimed to prevent this license |
| 35 |
combination are in conflict with the law and thus void. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Jörg |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
EMail:joerg@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin |
| 41 |
js@××××××××××××.de (uni) |
| 42 |
joerg.schilling@××××××××××××××××.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ |
| 43 |
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily |
Archives