For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

[Michael Sparks]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Cowan wrote:

> Chuck Swiger scripsit:
>
> > Thanks for submitting this license.
>
> Disclaimer:  Sun asked me for my opinion and feedback on this license, and
> paid me for it; however, the payment was not predicated on the opinion I gave.
> My opinion was and still is that the license is Open Source (and Free, and
> Fair).

[rest snipped - very interesting]

> and to consider using it as part of a list of recommended licenses in
> place of the MPL.

This in particular caught my eye. Out of interest why do you say this? (If
you're willing to say that is!) Based on several documents in the past,
including the Nasa report on licenses I've been involved in various
discussions at our workplace where the conclusion as to a license of
choice has been the MPL. Put another way, what advantages do you think
this has for a licensee and licensor over the MPL?

(Only if you're willing to answer :)

Regards,


Michael