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

[Karl Fogel]

Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> writes:
>The first part sounds plausible.  An additional permission should not
>invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to
>forget or ignore the exception and say "I just want my GPL."  That
>applies to GPL + classpath exception.  In fact, it explicitly says
>(for modified versions, but the modification could be trivial), "If
>you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
>version."
>
>However, I think this *is* an additional license, rather than just
>estoppel or covenant not to sue.

FWIW, I think the line of logic I was spinning out remains true even if
the exception doesn't contain a self-removal clause.  That is, if the
license+exception is OSD-compliant for the first downstream recipient,
then there's no reason that fact changes for the next recipient, or the
next, on down the chain.  There shouldn't be anything special about the
first recipient in a chain.

Obviously, this all depends on the nature of the exception.  If the
exception does more than just make a conditional promise of *inaction*
on the part of the copyright holder, then license+exception might or
might not be OSD-compliant.  It's just that we can say with confidence
(I think) that conditional promises of inaction -- and only inaction --
on the part of the only party with any enforcement powers cannot, in
principle, change a license from OSD-compliant to OSD-non-compliant.

-Karl