headers
Gervais, Mathieu | 1 Feb 21:23
Favicon

CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Hi,

Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
(i.e.  http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )

Thanks!

-mathieu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are
not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please
destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent
permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access
these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By mess
 aging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Cowan | 1 Feb 21:46

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Gervais, Mathieu scripsit:

> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
> exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?

As far as I know, the license stewards have never proposed them.

--

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan <at> ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rick Moen | 1 Feb 21:50
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Quoting John Cowan (cowan <at> mercury.ccil.org):

> As far as I know, the license stewards have never proposed them.

I might be misreading, but I thought that the original version of CDDL
was deemed to be version 1.1, because it was based on MPL 1.1.  If not,
then I have no idea what 'CDDL 1.1' is and how it differs from what OSI 
approved.

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rick Moen | 1 Feb 21:49
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Quoting Gervais, Mathieu (Mathieu.Gervais <at> morganstanley.com):

> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath
> exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?

About the latter, at a guess:

1.  It's not a licence.
2.  And nobody submitted it.

My new-BSD with required eating of a pastrami sandwich licence hasn't 
been approved, either.

Anyway, an open-source licence with an added grant of rights tacked on
(which is what GPLv2 w/classpath exception is) is obviously also open
source.

CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Richard Fontana | 1 Feb 21:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Gervais, Mathieu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is there any particular reason why CDDL1.1 and GPL2 _with classpath exception_ are not approved by the OSI ?
> (i.e.  http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html )

I am not sure when CDDL 1.1 was introduced but I think it was
relatively recently.

I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the
license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone
raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions
around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that
the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the
presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)

So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)

Some ASF discussion of CDDL 1.1 vs CDDL 1.0 here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-121

The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value
of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question
whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in
modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive
exception permutations, to my recollection.

As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it
were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Karl Fogel | 1 Feb 23:25
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Richard Fontana <rfontana <at> redhat.com> writes:
>I think the typical OSI modern tradition has been to wait for the
>license steward to request OSI approval, a general issue which someone
>raised on one of these OSI lists some time ago. (I believe exceptions
>around late 2007 included GPLv3 and its siblings for the reason that
>the FSF would never submit those licenses itself, along with the
>presumed inherent importance of those licenses.)

That's my understanding too.

>So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
>1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)

...or does anyone here want to contact them about it?

>The Classpath Exception may be another matter. I don't see the value
>of OSI approval of GPLv2+Classpath Exception (ignoring the question
>whether there's really a canonical version of it) since OSI has in
>modern times generally not bothered to approve GPL+permissive
>exception permutations, to my recollection.
>
>As for approving CDDL1.1+GPLv2 with Classpath Exception as though it
>were a single license, I think that would be unprecedented. Sun never
>asked for approval of CDDL 1.0 and GPLv2 + Classpath Exception as a
>single license package, SFAIK. 

Yes; to do this would to head down a combinatoric path of no return.

An hypothesis:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Flaschen | 6 Feb 05:12
Picon
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

On 02/01/2012 05:25 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> An hypothesis:
>
> If a license is already approved as open source, and the copyright
> holder adds an exception that merely indicates that under certain
> circumstances they will not enforce certain terms of the license, then
> the distribution terms are still "open source".
>
> The logic is that anyone who receives a copy of the software clearly has
> all the rights guaranteed them by the base license, and in the general
> case no one can compel a copyright holder to enforce things they choose
> not to enforce anyway.  In other words, things like the classpath
> exception are not really changes to the license at all.  They are rather
> promises -- a form of estoppel, in which recipients can depend on the
> license holder to not exercise certain powers they might otherwise have
> exercised.

The first part sounds plausible.  An additional permission should not 
invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to 
forget or ignore the exception and say "I just want my GPL."  That 
applies to GPL + classpath exception.  In fact, it explicitly says (for 
modified versions, but the modification could be trivial), "If you do 
not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version."

However, I think this *is* an additional license, rather than just 
estoppel or covenant not to sue.

IANAL. TINLA.

Matt Flaschen
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Karl Fogel | 6 Feb 06:15
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen <at> gatech.edu> writes:
>The first part sounds plausible.  An additional permission should not
>invalidate it complying with the OSD, as long as you can choose to
>forget or ignore the exception and say "I just want my GPL."  That
>applies to GPL + classpath exception.  In fact, it explicitly says
>(for modified versions, but the modification could be trivial), "If
>you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
>version."
>
>However, I think this *is* an additional license, rather than just
>estoppel or covenant not to sue.

FWIW, I think the line of logic I was spinning out remains true even if
the exception doesn't contain a self-removal clause.  That is, if the
license+exception is OSD-compliant for the first downstream recipient,
then there's no reason that fact changes for the next recipient, or the
next, on down the chain.  There shouldn't be anything special about the
first recipient in a chain.

Obviously, this all depends on the nature of the exception.  If the
exception does more than just make a conditional promise of *inaction*
on the part of the copyright holder, then license+exception might or
might not be OSD-compliant.  It's just that we can say with confidence
(I think) that conditional promises of inaction -- and only inaction --
on the part of the only party with any enforcement powers cannot, in
principle, change a license from OSD-compliant to OSD-non-compliant.

-Karl
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gervais, Mathieu | 2 Feb 02:34
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Thanks guys.
I understand that if no one bothered asking, it wouldn't be there. That's a fine answer. I just wanted to know
if on the contrary it went thru review and didn't get approved (I'm not sure how I would be able to know that
from the current OSI website. Maybe a list of proposed-but-rejection with a short summary of rationale
would be helpful?).
I'm not asking for a combined license ("CDDL 1.1 + GPL 2 with CPE") either, but I thought I'd send 1 email
instead of 2 separate ones.

Re: CDDL1.1, Rick wrote
> CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.
It's not listed on the website, which I assumed is pretty much the definition of certified.

>>So, I would assume it is up to Oracle to decide whether to submit CDDL
>> 1.1 for OSI approval. (Is anyone from Oracle on this list?)
> ...or does anyone here want to contact them about it?

I'll give it a shot.

> Anyway, an open-source licence with an added grant of rights tacked on (which is what GPLv2 w/classpath
exception is) is obviously also open source.

OK.

Thanks all.

-mathieu

-----Original Message-----
From: license-discuss-bounces <at> opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-bounces <at> opensource.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rick Moen | 2 Feb 02:48
Favicon

Re: CDDL 1.1 and GPL 2 with CPE

Quoting Gervais, Mathieu (Mathieu.Gervais <at> morganstanley.com):

> > CDDL 1.1 is OSI Certified.
> It's not listed on the website, which I assumed is pretty much the definition of certified.

Yes, apparently the version that's OSI Certified is CDDL 1.0 (which
was a slight modification of MPL 1.1).  I just now read up on the 1.0/1.1
differences.  Offhand, I see nothing that makes CDDL 1.1 fail OSD
compliance, though the new paragraph requiring litigation to be resolved
only in the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California's
Santa Clara County court venue using the laws of the State of California
will probably kill CDDL 1.1's appeal to many.

Basically, that addition turned it into an Oracle licence rather than one
for the world generally.  (Love, Larry E.)

(Not that I have anything against Santa Clara County.  A certain
maternity ward there did well by me, fifty-some years ago.)

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss <at> opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane