Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:52:36 +0300 From: son goku <ryu.planka@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: source code licensing questions Message-ID: <b5a284500907272352g4b720d6dmd1761e0dd42ab8c2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a333b2be0907270930s2488811cw8d60e6008ab504d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <b5a284500907270158s61e7c668s30a6b6b5eaa0b74e@mail.gmail.com> <20090727110952.GA60932@osiris.chen.org.nz> <4A6D8F5D.7020600@unsane.co.uk> <b5a284500907270542n123a4982t243061156facf57@mail.gmail.com> <a333b2be0907270930s2488811cw8d60e6008ab504d5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you all for your detailed answers. Indeed, sounds like we will need some lawyer advice... My gut feeling is that we are going with the BSD license with day one. I am relatively new to open source myself (Been developing most of my work on closed source UNIX systems and windows), but I hope to catch up very soon. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk < m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM, son goku <ryu.planka@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!! >> It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every >> serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanis= m >> inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that >> because >> of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel >> all >> over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed >> compared to dtrace. >> >> I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to >> mind...) or BSD do? Or there are no such modules anymore... >> >> > > > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/ > > ----------------------------- > http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html > > > - > > *1.3. =93Covered Software=94* means (a) the Original Software, or (b) > Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Sof= tware > with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions > thereof. > > > > - > > *1.6. =93Larger Work=94* means a work which combines Covered Software = or > portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. > - > > > - > > *3.6. Larger Works.* > > You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other > code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larg= er > Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the > requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software. > > -------------------------- > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php > http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt > http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/ > http://www.opensolaris.com/licensing/opensolaris_license/ > http://www.netbeans.org/cddl.html > http://www.openmediacommons.org/CDDL_License.html > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html > Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0<http://w= ww.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt> > > This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's > similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it > incompatible with the GNU GPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>. Thi= s > means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot > legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reas= on. > > Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term =93intellectual prope= rty<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>; > =94. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License > http://soundadvice.id.au/blog/2005/02/04/#cddl > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/ > > *If I use code licensed under the CDDL in my proprietary product, will I > have to share my source code?* > > Yes, for any source files that are licensed under the CDDL and any > modifications you make. However, you don't need to share the source for y= our > proprietary source files. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > http://lwn.net/Articles/114839/ > > > > I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my opinions does NOT have any legal value . > > In short , CDDL does NOT require to disclose your OWN proprietary sources= , > BUT ONLY requires to explicitly supply CDDL licensed parts with any chang= es > applied to them with respect to CDDL license . > > If you are a commercial entity my suggestion would be to seek legal advis= e > from a lawyer with expertise on software licenses and copyrights . > > > Thank you very much . > > > Mehmet Erol Sanliturk > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b5a284500907272352g4b720d6dmd1761e0dd42ab8c2>