Another polemic around Ubuntu

[Michael Hall]

On 06/02/2016 12:13 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Michael Hall:
>> The developers behind the decision have been open about their
>> intention, which was to create a copy-left license that didn't force
>> itself on code of other licenses the way the GPL does.
> 
> The fact is that the moment their code depends upon the kernel, their
> license is automatically overridden:
> 
> GPLv2:
>> Linking [name of your program] statically or dynamically with other
>> modules is making a combined work based on [name of your program].
>> Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License
>> cover the whole combination.
> 

It's not quite that simple, and Linus himself has said that some things
that depend on the kernel aren't derived works of the kernel, such as
the Andrew File System, and did not have to be released under the GPL.

> Which is not a surprise, as the purpose of the GPL is to warrant all
> software to be copy-left.
> 

This is the part I have the hardest time with. The CDDL *is* copy-left,
and it preserves all of the same rights and freedoms as the GPL does.
But it's the very fact that it is copy-left that causes the problem. If
taken literally, the GPL is not compatible with any other copy-left free
software.

> And even if there was a legal way to work around it, it would be going
> against the intention of their developers. Which is the point, respect
> for their choice.
> 

Is it? If the intention of the developers is that their code should be
free, open, and copy-left, then the CDDL complies with their intention.

> 
> Michael Hall:
>> Sun did a lot of good things for free and open source software,
>> there's no reason to suspect their intentions here.
> 
> They are not longer Sun:
> (http://goo.gl/C3mUyT)
> 
> 
> Nathan Haines:
>> Linus Torvalds is pretty firmly on record as not caring about
>> copyleft.
> 
> Linus Torvalds (http://goo.gl/tUNk4C):
>> The fundamental property of the GPLv2 is a very simple "tit-for-tat"
>> model: I'll give you my improvements, if you promise to give your
>> improvements back.
>>
>> It's a fundamentally fair licence, and you don't have to worry about
>> somebody else then coming along and taking advantage of your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 



Michael Hall
mhall119 at ubuntu.com