[License-discuss] CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Gervais, Mathieu Mathieu.Gervais at morganstanley.com
Thu Feb 2 01:34:45 UTC 2012

Thanks guys.
I understand that if no one bothered asking, it wouldn't be there. That's a fine answer. I just wanted to know if on the contrary it went thru review and didn't get approved (I'm not sure how I would be able to know that from the current OSI website. Maybe a list of proposed-but-rejection with a short summary of rationale would be helpful?).
I'm not asking for a combined license ("CDDL 1.1 + GPL 2 with CPE") either, but I thought I'd send 1 email instead of 2 separate ones.

Re: CDDL1.1, Rick wrote
> CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.
It's not listed on the website, which I assumed is pretty much the definition of certified.

>>So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
>> 1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)
> ...or does anyone here want to contact them about it?

I'll give it a shot.

> Anyway, an open-source licence with an added grant of rights tacked on (which is what GPLv2 w/classpath exception is) is obviously also open source.


Thanks all.


-----Original Message-----
From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:56 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Gervais, Mathieu wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
> (i.e.  http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )

I am not sure when CDDL 1.1 was introduced but I think it was
relatively recently.

I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the
license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone
raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions
around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that
the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the
presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)

So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)

Some ASF discussion of CDDL 1.1 vs CDDL 1.0 here:

The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value
of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question
whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in
modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive
exception permutations, to my recollection.

As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it
were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never
asked for approval of CDDL 1.0 and GPLv2 + Classpath Exception as a
single license package, SFAIK. 

- Richard

License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org

NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list