From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 15 18:29:17 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF87116A41C; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:29:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C554F43D4C; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:29:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin02-en2 [10.13.10.147]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout06/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j5FITHAT017907; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.153] (nfw1.codefab.com [199.103.21.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin02/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id j5FITFIX015058; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:29:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200504262010.49509@harrymail> <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <200506141824.17451@harrymail> <20050614185923.GA12375@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050615054209.L29741@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:29:35 -0400 To: obrien@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:29:18 -0000 On Jun 15, 2005, at 12:07 PM, David O'Brien wrote: >> You don't need to distribute the new file >> with that function. Of course that new file will not be CDDL covered. > > I never said CDDL was viral. It is like the GPL (LGPL if you like) in > that you must deliver the source with the binary. For key userland > pieces or kernel subsystems this goes against our philosophy. For > complete utilities, such as groff, CDDL is >< better than GPL as > the end > result is the 99.9% same. The OSI discussion on the CDDL counted it as a MPL derivative which is free, fair, reciprocal (or "copyleft", if you prefer that term), contains narrowly-crafted patent grant and patent defense clauses. My impression is that FreeBSD could redistribute code under this license and/or mix it with BSD-licensed code with less risk of conflict than one assumes with the GPL (due to GPL clause 7), as even the 3-clause variant of the BSD license-- which requires attribution of the authors-- conflicts with GPL #7. If the sole criterion is whether the CDDL permits one to redistribute private modifications in binary form without source, you're right that the CDDL is in the same boat as the GPL. -- -Chuck