For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)

[ROD DIXON, J.D., LL.M.]

 The CDDL seems to follow the OSD and is pretty well-written. The one reason
I withold my recommendation for approval is that Article 3 of the OSD , in
my opinion, requires a clearer definition of "modification" than this
license uses. The definition of modification in section 1.9 of the CDDL uses
the word "modification" which renders the meaning tautological; sections
1.3(b) and 3.2 also refer to modification, but do not clarify whether the
legal meaning of derivative work is meant.  As an aside, the CDDL appears to
allow the distribution of an executable under a license that differs from
the CDDL (and the accompanying source code). In doing so, the license
reminds me that the OSB has not been revised to better ensure that a license
like the CDDL cannot be used to wrap the executable in a DMCA technology in
order to fork the source code surreptitiously. 

-Rod

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Baker [mailto:Mitchell at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:41 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: Chuck Swiger; claire.giordano at sun.com; license-discuss at opensource.org;
Andrew Tucker
Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License
(CDDL)



Mitchell Baker renders the definition tautological. wrote:

> I would think that if there is to be a recommended list, one might  
> think that a trial period for a license -- to see how it is received, 
> whether it has unknown issues or other surprises -- might be a good 
> step before including it.
>
> Mitchell
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
>>Mitchell Baker scripsit:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>I couldn't help but not the recommendation at the end to use this as a
>>>recommended license in place of the MPL.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Please note that as far as I know the OSI has no such list of recommended
>>licenses.  If they ever do compile one and approve it officially, I think
>>that this license deserves to be on it, that's all.
>>
>>  
>>