 |
What is this CDDL thing, anyway?
Posted by driscoll on June 28, 2005 at 08:11 AM | Comments (6)
The CDDL License has been talked about quite a bit since Sun submitted it to the OSI (the independant body that validates Open Source licenses). At it's heart, it's basicly just the Mozilla Public license (in use for things like Firefox), with some bugfixes.
For a really good description of the process Sun used in coming up with the CDDL for OpenSolaris, check out Claire Giordano's Blog on CDDL.
Why did we pick CDDL for GlassFish? Well, there were quite a few good reasons, but two of the bigger ones were that we liked the copyleft provisions, and that we thought that the OSI had a point about license proliferation. We already had chosen CDDL for OpenSolaris, and the more we looked at CDDL, the more we liked it.
Still have questions? I'd love to hear them.
Bookmark blog post:  del.icio.us  Digg  DZone  Furl  Reddit
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment
-
The CDDL really does look like Mozilla+bugfixes (there's a nice markup somewhere that really makes this clear).
It would be great if Sun and Mozilla would do a big group hug and adopt the same license (yes, Mozilla could just adopt the CDDL, but there's pride involved). Get BSD in the mix too, and maybe the Apache folks would come along.
Basically, we need only 3 licenses: GNU, MozillaCDDLBSDApache and something LGPL-ish that allows unfettered use of precompiled binaries and byte-code.
Posted by: johnreynolds on June 28, 2005 at 08:22 AM
-
I'd respectfully disagree. There's a world of difference between BSD and CDDL philosophies, though I'd consider them both moderate. I'd instead argue that a CDDLish license should replace LGPL. But then, I'm not involved in the politics of such things. For which I'm eternally grateful.
I do know that the people who *are* involved in this area are actively working on this problem. Check with the OSI if you care passionately, and would like to help.
Posted by: driscoll on June 28, 2005 at 10:01 AM
-
Jim,
I'm surpised that you consider BSD and CDDL a world apart. Could you give me a hint of what you consider to be the primary BSD/CDDL differences?
I think the CDDL is "a good thing"... I just want to brush up my "elevator speech" on "what license to use" (I've been lumping Apache, BSD, and Mozilla together).
Thanks,
--John
Posted by: johnreynolds on June 29, 2005 at 06:08 AM
-
It's not the licenses that are so far apart - it's rather the philosophies behind them.
CDDL is a copyleft license - you are requrired to show the modifications you made to the source under CDDL, though it's not viral like the GPL. The philosophy is "share and share alike". It's considered a business-friendly license, since if you do add-ons, you can still keep the code proprietary.
BSD is a use license. In return for agreeing not to sue me, I give you the right to use the source code anyway you like, including relicensing under different terms. The philosophy is "use as you will". Businesses like BSD, for the obvious reasons.
GPL is a copyleft viral license - you are required to show the modifications you made to the source, and any code you add, as well . This is the big difference between CDDL and GPL, and tends to be the thing that scares off business users who don't have dedicated Open Source business models (though there are certainly quite a few of those around nowadays).
This is a hot button topic, so I'm choosing my words carefully. Alot of people get worked up about this all beyond any reason I can see, but again, as I said above I'm not involved in the politics of this thing...
Posted by: driscoll on June 29, 2005 at 12:27 PM
-
John: I blogged about this in connection with OpenSolaris (and added it to my collection). I regard MPL/CDDL as an optimal hybrid, copyleft on the commons but permissive with respect to your own invention. It is thus an ideal Glassfish license.
Posted by: webmink on July 13, 2005 at 03:41 AM
-
Hi Jim,
I'm hoping you can help with this question regarding some of the language used in the CDDL.
I'm just curious on how "You distribute or otherwise make available" should be interpreted.
Here's a few scenarios:
Scenario1:
Suppose I setup a webstore, and a customer fills out an order entry form. Then they hit submit and the request is processed by glassfish. Did I just "Otherwise make available" glassfish to the customer?
Scenario2:
I build a server (Hardware and everything) that can process purchasing orders. I then use this server to process purchasing orders using glassfish for an organization. The organization pays me for this service. Am I now "otherwise making available" glassfish to the organization?
Scenario 3:
Scenario 2 + a user in the organization that I'm leasing the services on the server to, sends request to glassfish sitting on my server, using a browser, and glassfish sends responses back to the user in the organization. Am I now "otherwise making available" glassfish to the organization?
Thanks,
- Ole
Posted by: ole_ersoy on August 26, 2005 at 01:59 PM
|
java.net RSS Feeds
