CDDL+GPL and stuff

[Konstantin Svist]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>   
>> What kind of problems would those be? The incompatibility seems to be on 
>> GPL-side only; CDDL explicitly permits linking to other licenses - so 
>> it's not like Sun will retaliate against the poor bastard who put the 
>> two together.
>>     
>
> The GPL requires that any derivative works you distribute are
> available under the GPL terms. If any components are under a
> different license, the terms of that license must be at most
> a subset of the terms of the GPL. That's called "compatible".
>
> For example the MIT license is compatible, as its terms are
> basically "do not remove notice and do not sue if it breaks".
> That is also in the GPL.
>
> The CDDL however is not GPL compatible:
> "It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only
> requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for
> certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a
> module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together."
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#CDDL
>
>   
>> What if there's a separate from kernel project, which will keep all the 
>> necessary changes to the Linux kernel to enable users to compile the 
>> merged code and use it for themselves? Would this be possible under some 
>> license?
>>     
>
> The legal issue here is whether a kernel module, by itself,
> qualifies as a derivative work of the Linux kernel. This is an
> open question.
>
> When code is written specifically to function as a Linux kernel
> module, probably that code qualifies as a derivative work. 
>
> In the particular case of a pre-existing work that is merely
> adapted to work with the Linux kernel, arguably the adapted
> code does not qualify as a derivative work. 
>
> Arnoud  

That's interesting.

What I meant by a separate project, though - I was thinking of a 
source-only distribution. If the end users are allowed to link anything 
they want, as long as they don't distribute it, and distributing source 
code only is pretty much covered as "free speech" - or at least GPL 
doesn't impose such a restriction on it... or am I wrong?