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