groff alternative?
Charles Swiger
cswiger at mac.com
Wed Jun 15 18:29:18 GMT 2005
On Jun 15, 2005, at 12:07 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
>> You don't need to distribute the new file
>> with that function. Of course that new file will not be CDDL covered.
>
> I never said CDDL was viral. It is like the GPL (LGPL if you like) in
> that you must deliver the source with the binary. For key userland
> pieces or kernel subsystems this goes against our philosophy. For
> complete utilities, such as groff, CDDL is >< better than GPL as
> the end
> result is the 99.9% same.
The OSI discussion on the CDDL counted it as a MPL derivative which
is free, fair, reciprocal (or "copyleft", if you prefer that term),
contains narrowly-crafted patent grant and patent defense clauses.
My impression is that FreeBSD could redistribute code under this
license and/or mix it with BSD-licensed code with less risk of
conflict than one assumes with the GPL (due to GPL clause 7), as even
the 3-clause variant of the BSD license-- which requires attribution
of the authors-- conflicts with GPL #7.
If the sole criterion is whether the CDDL permits one to redistribute
private modifications in binary form without source, you're right
that the CDDL is in the same boat as the GPL.
--
-Chuck
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list