On 01/25/2010 12:50 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 26/01/10 01:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
It seems that GPL and CDDL have some conflicting paragraphs, so even if
CDDL allows linking to GPL with this exception, GPL doesn't allow the
other way around.
I am not sure where you have this idea from....
The CDDL allows to combine CDDL code with other code
and the GPL permits to link any GPLv2 program against any independent
library under any license.
Note that the GPL is an asymmetric license that disallows code based
on GPLd
software but if a program _uses_ a library, the library definitely is
not based
on the program code that just uses the library code.
The common understanding of the laywers in Germany and the USA on
what's happening
when a program links against a library is that this creates a so
called "collective
work" which is not a derived work. The GPL definitely allows such
collective works.
See page 114 ff. in:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
Lawrence Rosen is the legal advisor of the OpenSource Initiative
opensource.org.
The FSF interprets that quite differently.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope
that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which
makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module
covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for
this reason.
So the debate as it stands is:
FSF says no
Sun says yes
Now, the FSF has an interest in the GPL as Sun does in the CDDL. So
these answers are probably not completely unbiased. At least one
answer is wrong... the obvious key is knowing which, and we really
are not in a position to find out ourselves.
So the only solution I can see is to cover out asses and just not
distribute cdrtools.
Allan
Hello,
My question is: this is relevant in Arch Linux? I guess that in general
there are no strong rules about license issues under Arch Linux.
I remember well, that some time ago, I asked some things about some
packages readline and BSD license. One comment, if I remember correctly,
is that strictly speaking there would be problems between OpenSSL and
software that makes use of it.
Finally the conclusion was something like: "Why discuss this? Everything
is free software!".
So: Why is the opposition? Why comply with details in this particular
case and in all other not? All is free software at all!
PS: If there's one thing I love about Arch Linux is that it does not
care about this great parody/paradox about licensing.
Good day \forall
--
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
