6 ms·
> There are people, though, that when looking for a license to use when releasing their software specifically choose one that is known to be incompatible with t
by pyre 11y ago
> There are people, though, that when looking for a license to use when releasing their software specifically choose one that is known to be incompatible with the GPL.
The issue at hand is not that the CDDL licensed software is being re-distributed under a GPL license. It's not. The issue is whether or not GPL software and CDDL software can interact in such a way as to violate the GPL license.
I doubt very much that "this can't be ported to a Linux kernel module" was a deciding factor when choosing the CDDL. If it was such an important factor, then they should have modified the CDDL to add such language to the license, which would make this issue much more clear.
- icebraining 11y agoI doubt very much that "this can't be ported to a Linux kernel module" was a deciding factor when choosing the CDDL. The fly in that ointment is Danise Cooper's claim that they chose to base the CDDL on Mozilla's MPL 1.0 license in part for its GPL-incompatibility. On the other hand, Sun's "Chief Open Source Officer", who introduced her at that talk as "the person who actually wrote the CDDL", later wrote she said that out of spite for losing the argument for licensing OpenSolaris as GPL. So, who knows.