From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 06:22:42 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5B016A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:22:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3085443D2F for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:22:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1C6MLWY051388; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:22:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j1C6MLQ2051387; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:22:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:22:21 -0500 From: David Schultz To: Eitarou Kamo Message-ID: <20050212062221.GA51239@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Eitarou Kamo , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <0A907D6523E90246822D32FA2344E244015E4B@CAA-UNCLMAIL.caa.army.mil> <20050212005228.GA43996@VARK.MIT.EDU> <420D92CA.5050200@trio.plala.or.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <420D92CA.5050200@trio.plala.or.jp> cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Star & FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:22:42 -0000 On Sat, Feb 12, 2005, Eitarou Kamo wrote: > > > > >Actually, I think the answer is YES. You're apparently answering > >a different question. See below. > > > >It is my understanding that virtually any open-source license is > >*compatible* with the MIT and 2-clause BSD licenses, since all the > >MIT/2-clause BSD licenses require is that you acknowledge and > >preserve the license, copyright, and disclaimer. > > > >However, I believe it is generally not possible to use CDDL code > >for integral parts of FreeBSD because, like the LGPL, the CDDL > >requires that modifications be made available under the CDDL. > >It is probably fine for kernel modules and extensions, but that's > >something core@ needs to decide. > > > > > > > > As the conclusion, which state are available? > > Pre Post > ---------------------------------- > BSD license ----> CDDL > GPL license ----> CDDL > MIT license ----> CDDL > CDDL ----> BSD license > CDDL ----> GPL license > CDDL ----> MIT license The Copyright holder can release his code under whatever licenses as he sees fit. If you're not the Copyright holder, then the story is different. It is my understanding that it is possible to add additional restrictions to BSD/MIT-licensed software (without removing the original restrictions and disclaimer, of course). However, the GPL forbids additional restrictions on both source and binary distributions, and the CDDL forbids additional restrictions on source distributions: You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients rights hereunder. --CDDL 1.0, sec 3.4 It's too bad that Sun's lawyers think they need to force people to contribute changes back to them. Once again: I am not a lawyer and make no guarantee about the accuracy of the contents of this message. The opinions herein do not reflect those of the FreeBSD Project. Use this information at your own peril. Beware of dog. Slippery when wet.