5 ms·

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

"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.

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.