[oi-dev] OpenSXCE It is illegal to sell without source code.

[Joerg Schilling]

Nikola M. <minikola at gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is not correct: The CDDL is file based and you are allowed to add new
> > files that you may keep secret. You however need to publish everything you
> > modified and that was under CDDL.
> Yeah, but if those file(s) that one adds to CDDL code are - Patches to 
> original code,
> that is the process of making new version of the code, that is actually 
> changing CDDL code
>   and does not represent self-sufficient library or subsystem or a file 
> , that is just linked to CDDL code - Patches to CDDL are changes and 
> therefore obligated to be published as original license.

You are wrong again: adding a file is not a patch. The CDDL uses a file based 
scope and thus adding files is ermitted under any license.

The GPL is work based - everything from a work (except the makefiles and 
similar) needs to be under the GPL.

The CDDL is file based. Any CDDL file must stay under CDDL.

The BSD license is line based, you may add new lines of code under a different 
license if you mark these lines.

> CDDL says:
>
>   *
>
>     *1.9. Modifications* means the Source Code and Executable form of
>     any of the following:
>
>       o
>
>         *A.* Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or
>         modification of the contents of a file containing Original
>         Software or previous Modifications;
>
>       o
>
>         *B.* Any new file that contains any part of the Original
>         Software or previous Modification; or
>
>       o
>
>         *C.* Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made
>         available under the terms of this License.
>
>     and
>
>     *3.1. Availability of Source Code.*
>
>     Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
>     in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form
>     and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms
>     of this License.

You are missinterpreting the CDDL.

THe text you quoted allow authors of new code in new files to declare them to 
be patches and thus to put them under CDDL. This is however not the default.

> > Oracle does not own all code from OpenSolaris and for this reason, Oracle would
> > need to make all related code available in case they modified the code compared
> > to the version from August 2010.
> I agree with you, Yet you could consider also some other approaches such 
> large company could take, besides from taking back all outside 
> contributed changes , rewriting any external code with their own 
> versions, being covered by code contribution contracts from Sun days on 
> top od CDDL, and the fact that CDDL itself states that Sun and now 
> Oracle is the license Stewart and can change license to whatever they want.

They cannot change the license of code they do not own and aprox. 1/3 of the 
code in "hsfs" is owned by me because I was not payed for that code and 
because I did not sign a contract that transfers the code to Sun.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'