Submitted by “At the time CDDL was being introduced, I wanted to write an illustrated version of it. Merely because hardly anyone would read the full license text. Even if they did, I doubt 9 out 10 would have understood it completely. A recent CDDL/GPL misunderstanding that made news and started flame wars, prompted me to revisit an old illustration.”
I hope that the GPL fans can see the reality of the situation when it’s laid out so simply.
>I hope that the GPL fans can see the reality of the situation when it’s laid out so simply.
I’m not a “fan” of the GPL but i support the idea implemented in the GPL.
But what should “we” see?
– That the CDDL is a Free Software license? That was already known before the article. See the list of Free Software licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses.
– That the CDDL isn’t a strong copyleft license? That was already known before. See the list of Free Software licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses.
– That the CDDL and the GPLv2 are not compatible? That was already known before. See the list of Free Software licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses.
I don’t see anything new in this article.
I don’t see anything new in this article.
Me neither, but I finally understand the differences.
Just because an explanation is simple doesnt make it comprehensive or unbiased. It is easy to create a checklist that shows the BSD license is “more free” than the GPL, and just as easy to show the opposite by changing the wording. Likewise with CDDL or any other issue.
I have no complaints with this particular article, but it is missing a lot of details.
looking at that chart.. the only differences I can really see is that the CDDL source files would need to be provided as CDDL…
So if I compile a program and use a CDDL source file in a GPL program can I distribute the program just as source and just have the source files under different licenses? Then leave it to the user to compile the software on linux or solaris or whatever? I wouldnt be distributing a program but the source for a program.
I would think this would free any incompatabilities with the licenses.
Please feel free to show me the error of my ways.
CDDL allows you to do that. However GPL doesn’t – if the “program” is considered as a “single work”. I guess a complete set of source files is considered as the same (or slightly less) “work” as a program compiled from that.
That’s why some (most?) of the Debian folks think “cdtools” package is “illegal” because there’re CDDL licensed makefiles inside the mostly GPL’ed package, while the author insists the makefiles are “separate work” (he has his own “smake” system).
GPL is more restrictive than CDDL and BSD in that regard.
Edited 2006-09-19 19:38
Ahh… I didnt think of the single work side. But how does firefox get by having been licensed under multiple licenses including the gpl? Thanks!
Mozilla has the original authors/copyright holders of the code relicense it in each of the three licences. They aren’t taking GPL code from someone else and using it in an MPL environment — they are creating all the code as simultaneously GPL and MPL so that it can be used as either by any derivative project.
The article didn’t quite explain the key points in the GPL. I’ll try to make clear what I understand about it:
– If you write a derivative work of a GPL program, your work MUST be distributed under the GPL, even if you distribute it independently from the original GPL program .
– If your work is not derivative but can be considered reasonably independent, there are two options:
A) If you distribute it together (linked) with a GPL program, you MUST distribute it under the GPL.
B) If you distribute it independently (not linked), your work can have any license you want.
Now, what’s a derivative work and what’s a reasonably independent work? That’s the GPL big mess. Those terms have no meaning, technically or juridicaly. Therefor the only clear thing is that as far as you don’t distribute your work linked with some GPL code you can do whatever you want. You probably won’t be sued, because no court would admit those vague terms. This is the case of ATI and NVIDIA drivers. They are kernel modules, and therefor they should be considered derivative works (if they aren’t, then what’s a derivative work???). So to distribute them with a license different than the GPL should be illegal. But Linus Torvalds et al. don’t sue ATI or NVIDIA, not only because that would piss Linux users who need the drivers, but probably because his chances to win are close to 0%. So in the end, the GPL is almost the same as BSD – only you can’t distribute your propietary code linked to GPL code (which is a very small problem, really).
So in the end, the GPL is almost the same as BSD – only you can’t distribute your propietary code linked to GPL code (which is a very small problem, really).
As noted by the linked article, you can’t distribute other open-source code linked to GPL code, either. That’s a trendous difference.
The LGPL doesn’t suffer from that flaw, but the LGPL isn’t the GPL.
>Now, what’s a derivative work and what’s a reasonably independent work? That’s the GPL big mess. Those terms have no meaning, technically or juridicaly.
No, it’s not the mess of the GPL it’s the mess of copyright law. The influence of the GPL on derived works goes as far as the influence from everyone else goes. It’s simply the copyright law of the location of the court which decides what a derivative work is and how far it goes. As long as MS can claim that you have build something based on their code or as long as Walt Disney can claim that your movie is a derivative work of their Micky Mouse, as long every author of GPL software can claim that your code is a derivative work too.
GPL does the same thing that producers of non-free software and other non-free stuff does. They use the copyright as far as possible to restrict users freedom and the GPL uses the copyright as far as possible to obtain the most possible freedom among society.
>So in the end, the GPL is almost the same as BSD – only you can’t distribute your propietary code linked to GPL code (which is a very small problem, really).
No, their are two big differences:
1. With BSD code you can build derivative works under any license. With GPL code derivative works must be free too.
2. BSD code gives you the power to deny other users freedom by distributing the BSD code or modifications as non-free software. GPL code guarantees the freedom to use, study, modify and distribute to everyone.
>1. With BSD code you can build derivative works under any license. With GPL code derivative works must be free too.
In theory you are right. But my point was that in practice this doesn’t happen. As an example I put the graphic cards propietary drivers. They “are” derivative works and yet they’re closed source.
>2. BSD code gives you the power to deny other users freedom by distributing the BSD code or modifications as non-free software. GPL code guarantees the freedom to use, study, modify and distribute to everyone.
Same as above. If this really happened in reality those drivers would be open source.
I like the GPL’s spirit, but the wording they used is really poor. What does “reasonably independent” mean? Who would start a lawsuit based on the argument that they consider some independently distributed code not to be “reasonably independent” from their own work?
My point was that until they don’t choose some technical criteria and put it clearly in the license, the GPL will fail to defend the freedom it claims, as it happens with the (in)famous propietary drivers.
>In theory you are right. But my point was that in practice this doesn’t happen.
In practice every producer of non-free stuff can sue me if i create for example something which is similar to Micky Mouse. And in the same way every GPL author can sue you if you create a derivative work in a way the GPL doesn’t allow. The copyright law knows derivative work, otherwise i could fork Micky Mouse, the latest Madonna song,.. and no one could stop me.
>Same as above. If this really happened in reality those drivers would be open source.
Wrong. An example:
I write program x and give it to you under the BSD license. Now you can distribute copies (modified or unmodified) under a non-free license. -> BSD license gives you the power to deny other users freedom.
On the other hand if i license program x under the GPL you can distribute copies (modified or unmodified) only under the terms of the GPL. -> The GPL guarantees the freedom to use, study, modify and distribute to everyone.
reasonably independent
a seperate work that basically does not rely on another work to do its thang..
> As an example I put the graphic cards propietary drivers.
> They “are” derivative works and yet they’re closed source.
The point of whether they are derivative or not is precisely what is so arguable in this particular issue. There is no defined legal line “from this point on it is a derivative, before it, it’s just another software”
– EULA should be MEULA ( as in Microsoft Eula ) , not all EULA are as restrictive as their’s.
– The graphic should also include AEULA ( Apple EULA ) and APSL.
– “Must use GPL for everything” should read *must be GPL compatible* , no one force anyone to write there code under the GPL or link to it.
– What are “right to perform” and “right to display” , why would they not be included in the GPL and not mentionned ? ( could be included in V3 if they are really important )
– Copyleft , Copycenter , Copyfree , Contriback , Supportfree.
Those are the quality the CDDL , BSD , EULA and all the others dont have and why people choose the GPL.
* Copyleft : is a play on the word copyright it give freedom where copyright is used to remove them.
* Copycenter : Take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want. ( BSD where the first to have this , they just forget they did invent it in latter versions ).
* CopyFree : You dont have to ask permission to do anything with it.
* Contriback : you have to make your modification and derivative availaible to all who ask or make the offer of giving access to it for a fee at any time in the futur to anyone who ask.
* SupportFree : Anyone can give support on it legally.
Its like an ilustration about :
William Lyon Mackenzie King Vs Adolph Hitler
– Human
– Breath air
– Elected Leader of there Country
– Participated in WW2
It whats not in the ilustration and there other qualities that differentiate them.
George Washington VS George W. Bush
– President Of the US of A
– Human
– Liberate Country from dictature.
– Put country at WAR.
– Military experience
The difference are in the details.
Its like saying why people dont use a lada and dream or buy porsches or something else , its cheaper , its tested technology , its old working technology …
The GPL License exist because the rest dont make the cut and is not of any value on what those who use it and make there software with it value the most :
Freedom , Sharing , Evolution , Building on the shoulder of giants.
Its Free Software , Open Source is for looser who just figured one quality of Free Software and are waiting to close its freedom down the road.
Sun , Bill Joy … They are the one who closed BSD …