From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 15 05:47:28 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 0343216A41C for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:47:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894F643D48 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:47:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de ([129.247.173.6]) by smtp-1.dlr.de over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:47:25 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:47:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt_h@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20050614185923.GA12375@dragon.NUXI.org> Message-ID: <20050615054209.L29741@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <200504262010.49509@harrymail> <20050429200029.GC232@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <200506141824.17451@harrymail> <20050614185923.GA12375@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2005 05:47:25.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5173C60:01C5716D] Cc: Emanuel Strobl , Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Re: groff alternative? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt 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 05:47:28 -0000 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, David O'Brien wrote: DO>On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:24:07PM +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote: DO>> today I read a news article (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60600) DO>> about OpenSolaris beeing released, but is there also the groff alternative DO>> included? DO>> I'd love to see a lean replacment for our current gnu version. DO> DO>Before everyone gets all happy thinking we can incorporate all kinds of DO>bits from Open Solaris - one should read the license agrement first. DO> DO> COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE Version 1.0 DO> .. DO> 3.1. Availability of Source Code. DO> Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available DO> in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form DO> and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of DO> this License. DO> DO>this puts the CDDL1.0 in the same boat as GPL'ed code from a BSD stand DO>point. I think that's not entirely correct. If you read the other statements you'll find that you can put together CDDL covered files with files covered by any other license (given that the other license allows this) and distributed that. In this case you don't need to distribute the pieces that are covered by the other license. Let's say you take a CDDL-ed program, add a function call in some of the files and put that function into a file with a closed license. You need to distribute only the file with the function call added. You don't need to distribute the new file with that function. Of course that new file will not be CDDL covered. harti