5 ms·
It's not, CDDL explicitly states it doesn't apply to non-CDDL-ed source files. The problem is, GPL is claimed to be the other way around, so this would mean ap
by trasz 4y ago
It's not, CDDL explicitly states it doesn't apply to non-CDDL-ed source files. The problem is, GPL is claimed to be the other way around, so this would mean applying GPL to CDDL sources, and you can't do that, because CDDL gives you additional protections ("freedoms") GPL doesn't, and that's GPL-incompatible.
- josephcsible 4y agoIf I combined ZFS and the Linux kernel and licensed the result under the CDDL, I'd be violating the GPL. If I instead licensed the result under the GPL, then I'd be violating the CDDL. I'm not seeing how the licenses' differences actually cause an asymmetry here.
- trasz 4y agoYou can't "license the result", it's not your decision to make. GPL parts are GPL, CDDL parts are CDDL, BSD parts are BSD and so on. There's no problem with mixing code under different licences. That is, until GPL enters the picture - because GPL is viral, so it (at least according to FSF) claims the non-GPL parts too. It's not a problem for, say, BSD, because it's a subset of GPL[1], but it can be a problem with licenses that guarantee you more freedoms than GPL, like CDDL, Mozilla license, Apache, or even GPLv3. 1. And it used to be a problem with the old BSD, with the advertising clause, precisely because it wasn't a subset.