Look, the CDDL appears to be absolutely fine with copyright holders of GPL works incorporating CDDL software and distributing it. All the GPL copyright holders have to do is promise not to sue themselves or others for it. Pretty simple. (Consult your own counsel, of course!). Essentially, you're complaining that Sun released free-software under a licence not quite to your liking. Further, given that Sun legal had some involvement in the GPLv3 process, it's possible that even if Sun had chosen the GPL, Sun'd have chosen v3 (course, v3 took another few years to be finalised..), and people would still be complaining. Further, in good humour, you're speculating yourself toward conspiracy-theory kook land. Read what Danese said, she said "partially because". It's therefore entirely reasonable to think there were other factors involved. E.g. one of the major differences between the CDDL and the GPLv2 concerns patent rights and Sun is subject to patent infringment suits on a not-infrequent basis. It seems reasonable to put and two and two together and speculate that Suns' lawyers really wanted a licence with some kind of patent cross-licensing language. I.e. it's possible GPL-licensing simply would not have been acceptable, regardless of what you take from Danese's comment. NB: I work for Sun, but I was no more privy to the "which licence for opensolaris?" discussions than you were (indeed, they would have predated my employment largely ;) ).
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds