Linus Torvalds has some interesting comments on Sun’s CDDL License which has been submitted to OSI’s approval.
Linus Torvalds comments on Sun’s CDDL license
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
not really. the only difference comes in derivation. the diff is trivially small.
Uh, no. The implications of licensing and, in particular, reusing – code under the GPL vs the LGPL are significantly different.
my point was sun could have licensed solaris under lgpl instead of choosing a incompatible license
Undoutedly they felt the LGPL wouldn’t provide them with the control they desired.
you dont relicense the original bsd code. the derived code is gpl.
Correct. You relicense the *derivative* code that the combined codebases create under the GPL, not the original code.
However, you can’t grab the source tarball of the new, derivating program and manually extract out the formerly BSD licensed bits.
the original is still BSD.
The original code is indeed BSDL. However, that code in its form of the combined codebases is *not* BSDL, it is GPL (assuming you distribute it, that is).
this has how opensound was bsd licensed under gpl kernel and made available under bsd license for freebsd too.
I’m not quite sure why you think that’s a relevant example, at least by your description (I am unfamiliar with the licensing details of opensound).
You are entirely wrong on your understanding.
I am only repeating the relevant restrictions and conditions of the BSDL and GPL.
Because you clearly don’t seem to think you’re talking about in your last comments regarding distributing and licensing GPLv2 and revised BSD licensed work. Others have commented on it, but you still seem to be very confident being right.
IANAL either, but i do understand the basics of the GPLv2 and the basics of copyright enough to see how your logic is fundamentally flawed. I’ll spell it out for you, in very simple rhetoric.
(Note i’m referred to GPL version 2 as simply ‘GPL’ hereunder for the sake of brevity)
* Developer X programmed and distributes Code Y under specified License Z.
* Random person, for whatever purpose, wants to relicense Code Y.
* Now, what the hell are you thinking now if you think Randon person is somehow allowed to relicense code? You’re simply, by default, not allowed to even do that! Only Developer X is allowed to relicense Code Y under another license than License Z.
* In other words (to make it even more simple for you), if this random Person happens to be some develop of Linux distribution, and he downloads, compiles and links GPLed code with revised BSD licensed code, then he did not somehow ‘magically’ license his work under the GPL for he has got not the authentication for that from Developer X. Its simple as that, really.
* Case closed. Next.
* Developer X programmed and distributes Code Y under specified License Z.
* Random person, for whatever purpose, wants to relicense Code Y.
* Now, what the hell are you thinking now if you think Randon person is somehow allowed to relicense code? You’re simply, by default, not allowed to even do that! Only Developer X is allowed to relicense Code Y under another license than License Z.
This is not about “relicensing” code, it’s about the license applied to the *derivative* code.
An example:
(Assuming the resultant derivative code is distributed, such that the GPL actually means something).
Code fragment A, licensed under the GPL.
Code fragment B, licensed under the BSDL.
Code fragment C, the combination of code fragments A and B.
A remains under the GPL.
B remains under the BSDL.
C must be GPLed.
So, the component code B, when distributed as a part of C is GPLed (ie: it is distributed under the terms of the GPL).
Note that at no stage have I suggested B – and B alone – can be “relicensed” under the GPL. *Only* when it is combined with GPLed code, resulting in a product that must also be GPLed, does that BSD code – as part of C – become subject to the requirements of the GPL.
What does it actually matter then, given the revised BSD licensed code is still revised BSD licensed code.
Quote: Untrue. If I combine a bunch of BSD and GPL code into a product and then release that product, the *entire thing* must be available under the terms of the GPL. Ie: the code is *all* GPLed.
If you didn’t wrote that it would have saved a lot of words…