Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:29:35 -0400 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? Message-ID: <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200504262010.49509@harrymail> <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <F569DB909C927A00B6933382@peregrin.orthanc.ca> <200506141824.17451@harrymail> <20050614185923.GA12375@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050615054209.L29741@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C>