3 ms·

Pls define "compatible"; this is a totally ambiguous/undefined term; that's why I put it in quotes in all of my comments.

by Rochus 5y ago

fluidcruft 5y ago
"Compatible" means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict. CDDL was deliberately designed to conflict with GPL. For example https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux
- Rochus 5y ago
  > means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict This approach is too simplistic. It should also be remembered that each state has its own legislation and the effect and enforceability (and thus the "compatibility") of the licenses differs in each country. It also depends on what you specifically intend to do with the OSS licensed components. A conclusion can only be reached for the specific case at hand, not in general. As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain.
  - fluidcruft 5y ago
    There's plenty of enforcement precedent. The fact that big-pocket companies settle rather than go to court against the FSF says more than you think it does.
    - Rochus 5y ago
      > There's plenty of enforcement precedent. Unfortunately not. There are some rulings on a few issues, but far too few to establish solid practice. > settle rather than go to court Unfortunately, this is a practice that is already known from the patent field, and which unfortunately also opens the door to trolls. Especially the big companies would have the necessary budget to have important license issues clarified in court. By the way, the FSF and others could also take legal action on various unclear points of their license, but they knowingly refrain from doing so because the risk is too great for them, too.
      - fluidcruft 5y ago
        FSF and SFC take plenty of enforcement actions and are quite successful. You seem to be just spreading lawyer FUD.
        Rochus 5y ago
        Then maybe you can provide references to the leading judgments in matters of e.g. "Tivoization" or termination/reinstatement of the license.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
        Tivoization doesn't violate GPLv2. It was one of the major motivations for GPLv3.
        detaro 5y ago
        Why did you think the question was about rulings about GPLv2 and not GPLv3?
        Rochus 5y ago
        > Tivoization doesn't violate GPLv2. What makes you so sure? Do you have any supreme court rulings in this regards? Does your statement relate to the US only or to Europe as well? With respect to GPL3, on the other hand, one can argue with good reasons that "Tivoization" is allowed in certain cases (the license even makes explicit provisions); so here, too, appropriate judgments are needed to create legal certainty.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain. By that standard, no open Source license is understandable or tested in any situation, forget combining them.
    - Rochus 5y ago
      This is a reason why many companies still avoid using OSS altogether.
- p_l 5y ago
  CDDL wasn't deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL - that's one person's off-hand remark at one conference. Simultaneously we know that teams that insisted against GPLv3 expected that CDDL code will be compatible with GPLv2 projects like linux.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
It's a perfectly well accepted term in context (jargon); if it's new to you then that's fine but it's not a fault of the term. When you use open source code, you have to comply with the license requirements on that code. Sometimes, it's possible to combine code because the licenses can both be applied to the combined result at the same time. For instance, many permissive licenses boil down to a requirement that you include the original author in credits for the program. The GPL requires that you share the source code that went into a binary with anybody who gets a copy of binary (basically). Since you can fulfill both of these requirements at the same time, you can freely combine code into the two licenses (although the result will effectively be all GPL), so they're compatible. Because GPL & CDDL both require that the relevant code must be licensed under their license specifically, you can't fulfill both requirements at the same time unless the code was originally dual-licensed by the original authors, because you can't change GPL code to CDDL or vice-versa. (IANAL and this is simplified; tread cautiously)
- Rochus 5y ago
  Thanks. The question was meant more rhetorically, since lawyers (I also studied law) usually have a hard time with OSS licenses, and many developers make assumptions that often don't match reality. A seemingly "well accepted" assumption often turns out to be a costly mistake. I therefore share your recommendation: tread cautiously.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Why do lawyers have a hard time with OSS licenses?
    - Rochus 5y ago
      Because the licenses often do not use the established legal language, or are not formulated with respect to existing legislation or international agreements.

Pls define "compatible"; this is a totally ambiguous/undefined term; that's why I put it in quotes in all of my comments.

by Rochus 5y ago

Pls define "compatible"; this is a totally ambiguous/undefined term; that's why I put it in quotes in all of my comments.

fluidcruft 5y ago

"Compatible" means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict. CDDL was deliberately designed to conflict with GPL. For example https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux

Rochus 5y ago
> means that two licenses don't have terms/conditions that contradict This approach is too simplistic. It should also be remembered that each state has its own legislation and the effect and enforceability (and thus the "compatibility") of the licenses differs in each country. It also depends on what you specifically intend to do with the OSS licensed components. A conclusion can only be reached for the specific case at hand, not in general. As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain.
- fluidcruft 5y ago
  There's plenty of enforcement precedent. The fact that big-pocket companies settle rather than go to court against the FSF says more than you think it does.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    > There's plenty of enforcement precedent. Unfortunately not. There are some rulings on a few issues, but far too few to establish solid practice. > settle rather than go to court Unfortunately, this is a practice that is already known from the patent field, and which unfortunately also opens the door to trolls. Especially the big companies would have the necessary budget to have important license issues clarified in court. By the way, the FSF and others could also take legal action on various unclear points of their license, but they knowingly refrain from doing so because the risk is too great for them, too.
    - fluidcruft 5y ago
      FSF and SFC take plenty of enforcement actions and are quite successful. You seem to be just spreading lawyer FUD.
      - Rochus 5y ago
        Then maybe you can provide references to the leading judgments in matters of e.g. "Tivoization" or termination/reinstatement of the license.
        fluidcruft 5y ago
        Tivoization doesn't violate GPLv2. It was one of the major motivations for GPLv3.
        detaro 5y ago
        Why did you think the question was about rulings about GPLv2 and not GPLv3?
        Rochus 5y ago
        > Tivoization doesn't violate GPLv2. What makes you so sure? Do you have any supreme court rulings in this regards? Does your statement relate to the US only or to Europe as well? With respect to GPL3, on the other hand, one can argue with good reasons that "Tivoization" is allowed in certain cases (the license even makes explicit provisions); so here, too, appropriate judgments are needed to create legal certainty.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > As long as there are no supreme court rulings for the specific case or a sufficiently similar case, the legal situation remains uncertain. By that standard, no open Source license is understandable or tested in any situation, forget combining them.
  - Rochus 5y ago
    This is a reason why many companies still avoid using OSS altogether.
p_l 5y ago
CDDL wasn't deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL - that's one person's off-hand remark at one conference. Simultaneously we know that teams that insisted against GPLv3 expected that CDDL code will be compatible with GPLv2 projects like linux.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

It's a perfectly well accepted term in context (jargon); if it's new to you then that's fine but it's not a fault of the term. When you use open source code, you have to comply with the license requirements on that code. Sometimes, it's possible to combine code because the licenses can both be applied to the combined result at the same time. For instance, many permissive licenses boil down to a requirement that you include the original author in credits for the program. The GPL requires that you share the source code that went into a binary with anybody who gets a copy of binary (basically). Since you can fulfill both of these requirements at the same time, you can freely combine code into the two licenses (although the result will effectively be all GPL), so they're compatible. Because GPL & CDDL both require that the relevant code must be licensed under their license specifically, you can't fulfill both requirements at the same time unless the code was originally dual-licensed by the original authors, because you can't change GPL code to CDDL or vice-versa. (IANAL and this is simplified; tread cautiously)

Rochus 5y ago
Thanks. The question was meant more rhetorically, since lawyers (I also studied law) usually have a hard time with OSS licenses, and many developers make assumptions that often don't match reality. A seemingly "well accepted" assumption often turns out to be a costly mistake. I therefore share your recommendation: tread cautiously.
- pc86 5y ago
  Why do lawyers have a hard time with OSS licenses?
  - Rochus 5y ago
    Because the licenses often do not use the established legal language, or are not formulated with respect to existing legislation or international agreements.