www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:20:39 GMT
On Mar 16, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Then how does CDDL differ from some GPL + Binary Exception type  
> license?

As I've said half a million times before, the GPL is written to
exclude exceptions.  It says, point blank, that no exceptions are
allowed.  One cannot construct a license that is internally
contradictory without asking the users to believe a lie, and thus
there is no such thing as a valid GPL + Binary Exception type license.
[The FSF's opinions on that matter are irrelevant because they do not
suffer if the exception is found to be invalid -- the GPL survives.]

A GPL-covered work can be dual-licensed, meaning the second license is
a complete copyright license that can stand on its own and not some
half-baked exception.

....Roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message