| |||||||||||||
More DTrace envyMore DTrace envyPosted Jul 3, 2008 22:47 UTC (Thu) by bcantrill (guest, #31087)In reply to: More DTrace envy by bronson Parent article: More DTrace envy
You (or rather your friend) is making my point: the restitutionary damages that she mentions are the case of Meglocorp shipping GPL'd goober in proprietary product, and Hacker suing for damages. That's not the case that was being floated; the assertion was that Meglocorp would become a Linux copyright holder and then could sue when CDDL'd source was distributed with the(ir) GPL'd source. I don't see what the damages are in this case -- compensatory or restitutionary. I think if it's flipped around -- Meglocorp ships GPL'd+CDDL'd goober, Hacker sues because GPL has been violated -- one at least has a case, but I happen to think it's an extraordinarily weak case: it relies on both an expansive definition of a derived work, and a creative approach to damages.
(Log in to post comments)
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 22:58 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] Nobody knows how far the derived work clause of the GPL would actually reach. Staking your future business to a legal gamble isn't a move many people are willing to make without a large resulting benefit, and dtrace simply isn't perceived as a sufficiently large benefit. It's perfectly rational reasoning.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 4, 2008 0:03 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] > Meglocorp ships GPL'd+CDDL'd goober, Hacker sues because GPL has been violated Agreed. This is the only one that seems plausible. But proving damages seems to be rather easy nowadays. And just about anybody involved with Meglocorp could sue; it doesn't have to be a Linux kernel hacker. Here's the big-picture problem as I see it: after the SCO disaster, the Linux kernel devs will not incorporate any code of questionable license status into the kernel. They want to keep the entire tree completely unencumbered by legal issues. It was a good lesson at a good time. So, until it can be demonstrated that CDDL and GPL code absolutely can be mixed, they won't accept CDDL-licensed code into the kernel. it's just too risky. As far as derived work, while I agree that those parts of the GPL are horribly murky and untested, I don't think it's very relevant here... Even if someone *could* claim that DTrace is a derived work (a stretch!), as long as the CDDL+GPL combination is "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of [the GPL]" everything is good. If the CDDL and the GPL are compatible, the terms of the GPL are met, and the whole derived work issue is moot. (Right?) To make CDDL+GPL compatible, IIUC the patent issues just need to be resolved the way Mozilla did with the MPL. Everything else in the CDDL and the GPL is compatible today. (I'm no expert though so I'd sure value someone else's opinion. That almost sounds too easy!) It would be nice to see someone reject license prejudices and try to maintain an out-of-tree DTrace-Linux but... can you imagine? The git-rebases would make the even the heartiest programmer cower in fear!
|
|||||||||||||