Debian and Nexenta collide
Posted Nov 10, 2005 1:11 UTC (Thu) by cventers
In reply to: Debian and Nexenta collide
Parent article: Debian and Nexenta collide
Did you read the article Stallman wrote? The one called "Sun's no-op
announcement" that referred specifically to the patent grants in
question? Unless I'm drunk, or he's totally wrong, then Sun's CDDL patent
grants extend to nothing except Sun's own CDDL-released software.
>> So what has really happened here? Reading the announcement clearly, I
>> think that it doesn't announce anything at all. It simply describes,
>> in a different and grandiose way, the previously announced release of
>> the Solaris source code as free software under Sun's idiosyncratic
>> license, the CDDL. Outside Solaris, few or no free software packages
>> use that license--and Sun has not said it won't sue us for
>> implementing the same techniques in our own free software.
Patent grants implied by the CDDL are *certainly* not available to GPL
code. Read OpenSolaris.org's comments:
>> The CDDL provides an explicit patent license for code released under
>> the license. This means that you can use, modify, and redistribute
>> code released under CDDL without worrying about any patents that the
>> contributors of the code (including Sun) might have on the contributed
>> technology. The license also includes a provision to discourage patent
>> litigation against developers, by revoking the rights to the code for
>> anyone initiating a patent claim against a developer regarding code
>> they have contributed.
Found on ZDNet:
>> Perhaps the most interesting among the list of commentators is IBM's
>> vice president of standards, Bob Sutor, who in his blog entry,
>> commended Sun for embracing the spirit of open source, but then added
>> "As far as I understand it, Sun is not pledging these patents for use
>> in any open source project as [IBM] did."
So how can you say:
>> Note that the patent grants implied by the CDDL *are* available to GPL
>> code, indeed code under any licence. It is the *GPL* which restricts
>> itself, simply because it is quite old now and doesn't deal with the
>> question in any way except to say essentially the patents must be
>> licenced unconditionally to everyone, royalty-free.
Please clarify! Better yet, please tell your bosses at Sun to clarify in
to post comments)