Comments on: gplv2/cddl dual-licensing http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/ thoughts on open spaces Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:50:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: How To Start A Blog http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-64852 How To Start A Blog Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:56:20 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-64852 <p><strong>How To Start A Blog</strong></p> <p>I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting</p> How To Start A Blog

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

]]> By: Programming Tutorials http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-63236 Programming Tutorials Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:04:19 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-63236 <p><strong>Programming Tutorials</strong></p> <p>I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting</p> Programming Tutorials

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

]]> By: El Geek Errante · El Geek Errante: transmisión #11 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-61399 El Geek Errante · El Geek Errante: transmisión #11 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:31:52 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-61399 <p>[...] Netbeans se cambia a CCDL+GPLv2 - (link) [...]</p> [...] Netbeans se cambia a CCDL+GPLv2 - (link) [...]

]]> By: Simon Phipps http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-61035 Simon Phipps Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:56:17 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-61035 <blockquote>What if someone forks a GPLv2 only Netbeans from which fixes can be sent back upstream into the CDDL Netbeans?</blockquote> <p>That's a risk, but to create a useful fork to which others contribute the rebel would need to either maintain a "masking layer" over the NetBeans code so that it can delta future revisions, which would keep the scope of the fork small, or gather sufficient developers to replicate the original community. The former has happened elsewhere (NeoOffice for example is a masking layer over OpenOffice.org) and the latter is an unlikely event which, if it happens, is an indictment of a failure of the original community that would undoubtedly be manifest in other ways as well.</p> <p>It's easy to get drawn in to the specifics of the terms of licenses, but I'm coming round to agreeing with Eben Moglen that the primary role of licenses in Free software lays not in their specific terms but in their role as <a href="http://ihack.us/2007/07/25/eben-moglen-public-policy-in-the-free-world/" rel="nofollow">the constitution of a community</a>. I believe the addition of GPL to NetBeans is a reflection of a desire to be included in certain GNU/Linux distributions that use that license as their constitution. That was certainly the main motivation for using GPL for the Java platform.</p> What if someone forks a GPLv2 only Netbeans from which fixes can be sent back upstream into the CDDL Netbeans?

That’s a risk, but to create a useful fork to which others contribute the rebel would need to either maintain a “masking layer” over the NetBeans code so that it can delta future revisions, which would keep the scope of the fork small, or gather sufficient developers to replicate the original community. The former has happened elsewhere (NeoOffice for example is a masking layer over OpenOffice.org) and the latter is an unlikely event which, if it happens, is an indictment of a failure of the original community that would undoubtedly be manifest in other ways as well.

It’s easy to get drawn in to the specifics of the terms of licenses, but I’m coming round to agreeing with Eben Moglen that the primary role of licenses in Free software lays not in their specific terms but in their role as the constitution of a community. I believe the addition of GPL to NetBeans is a reflection of a desire to be included in certain GNU/Linux distributions that use that license as their constitution. That was certainly the main motivation for using GPL for the Java platform.

]]> By: Dalibor Topic http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-60616 Dalibor Topic Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:54:17 +0000 http://whacked.net/2007/08/18/gplv2cddl-dual-licensing/#comment-60616 <p>I think people are more likely to contribute to something they can reuse themselves. As someone who usually uses the GPL for his own work, I'd be more likely to contribute to a dual licensed NetBeans project, than to a CDDL one, as I can't reuse the code from the latter in my own projects.</p> I think people are more likely to contribute to something they can reuse themselves. As someone who usually uses the GPL for his own work, I’d be more likely to contribute to a dual licensed NetBeans project, than to a CDDL one, as I can’t reuse the code from the latter in my own projects.

]]>