[License-review] CDDL 1.1

[Richard Fontana]

I don't think it was ever submitted. It might make sense as a legacy
approval license. As far as I know, CDDL 1.1 was only used for certain
JavaEE reference implementations that had been under CDDL 1.0 under
Sun's stewardship, usually as part of a dual license along with GPLv2
+ the Classpath Exception. Those versions are still in some use, but
the successors of those implementations are now generally found in the
Eclipse Foundation's Jakarta EE projects where EPL 2.0 replaces CDDL
as the non-GPL part of the dual license.

The other CDDL 1.0 use case I know of is OpenSolaris and certain
adjacent projects, but to my knowledge none of that stuff ever got
licensed under CDDL 1.1.

Somewhat awkwardly also, but maybe not relevant, the OSI still
classifies CDDL 1.0 as one of the "popular and widely used or with
strong communities" license. Even if you want to argue that CDDL 1.0
has been, at any point in the past 15 years or so, a license that is
"popular and widely used or with strong communities", surely no one
would argue that this is true of CDDL 1.1. :)

Richard

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 4:52 PM Warner, Brian (TS3K) via
License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I searched the list archives and didn't see a submission for CDDL 1.1 (my apologies if I missed it). I know it's been around for quite a while, but if it wasn't submitted in the past would it make sense to add it?
>
> I diffed the text in case it helps. The differences between 1.0 and 1.1 appear to be:
>
> 1. Oracle is the initial license steward, not Sun
> 2. Section 6.3 is new: "If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that the Participant Software directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license."
> 3. Section 7 is changed to remove the words "LOST PROFITS"
> 4. A choice of venue was added: "NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)
> The code released under the CDDL shall be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding conflict-of-law provisions). Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California and the state courts of the State of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California."
>
> Thanks,
> Brian