3 ms·
Someone emailed me to say that someone that Oracle might be able to change the terms of the CDDL for all software licensed under the CDDL as per sections 4.1 an
by ryao 11y ago
Someone emailed me to say that someone that Oracle might be able to change the terms of the CDDL for all software licensed under the CDDL as per sections 4.1 and 4.2. My discussions with lawyers thus far had focused on whether Oracle could change the license for just the OpenZFS code base (the answer is no) without any other copyright holders agreeing. Whether Oracle can change the definition of the CDDL for all software licensed under it (without the statement "version 1.0 only") is something that I need to run past a lawyer, but that might be possible.
- ryao 11y agoI did not say it earlier, but this loophole would theoretically allow Oracle to publish a new version of the CDDL that is not open source at all and all software under the CDDL without a version peg would be avaliable under it. I just consulted with another OpenZFS developer. All new files will be CDDL version 1.0 only. Consequently, this loophole is being closed.
- ioquatix 11y agoWhy can't new code be dual licensed, say, under the CDDL and the MIT license?
- icebraining 11y agoThe CDDL has a copyleft provision, similar to the MPL. One of the clauses states "The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License."
- carussell 11y agoThe CDDL is file-based, just like the MPL that it was forked from, and was specifically authored to allow mixing with proprietary code. The only thing that the part you quoted means is that changes to existing files must be available under CDDL terms (or freer). In any case, the contributors who own the rights to the code they submit are free to make it available under any other license they want, whether it be MIT or something else.