Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL, OpenSSL, and the GPL
Posted Feb 17, 2011 8:45 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786)
Posted Feb 17, 2011 12:35 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
" One current and one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico in 2006. Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL-
incompatible. For everyone who wants to hear this first-hand, we have
video from that talk available at ."
Posted Feb 17, 2011 12:51 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786)
While one could claim that any license that is not GPL-compatible is being done "on purpose", it's good to keep in mind that the whole problem with incompatibility is on the GPL side. Again, that's why there are no OpenSSL-incompatible licenses, no Mozilla-incompatible licenses and no CDDL-incompatible licenses - except for GPL.
One more thing to note is that if Sun released their code under GPL, it would make it impossible to guarantee a patent protection to their users, or to use that code in any operating system other than Linux - and Linux folks wouldnt' accept that code anyway due to NIH.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 15:51 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
>The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
>derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
>copied and put under another distribution licence
>[including the GNU Public Licence.]
So any derivative work must be released under the terms of the SSLeay license. This makes it incompatible with any copyleft license at the very least. For example, an MIT licensed piece of software can be combined with CDDL software, and the whole distributed under the CDDL, because adhering to the terms of the CDDL necessarily means adhering to the terms of the MIT license. With SSL, this is not the case; in fact it's similar to the GPL's requirement that no further restrictions be imposed, so probably has all the same incompatibilities.
Posted Feb 17, 2011 17:39 UTC (Thu) by branden (subscriber, #7029)
Thanks for quoting the paragraph to which I referred. I don't understand how people can overlook that when it's been kept in the top-level license file for at least the past five years.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds