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

[Joerg Schilling]

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

>
> Or the difference exist because I think CDDL forces treating files that 
> change previous code as patches and you maybe say, that treating files 
> that change existing code as patches is - optional?

If you add code in new files, it is fully optional to the author whether the 
new files are put under CDDL.

> I don't think text i quoted only allows - I think it _requires_ to treat 
> files that change previous code as contribution and that it is Not 
> optional. That is how copyleft works anyway anything one change is 
> destined to be glued into next release (except of course additional 
> files that do not change anything in previous code).
> So there are 2 types of files, ones that change something in previous 
> code and others that do not.

This was one of the main topics during a long phone call I had with the 
initiators of the CDDL in December 2004. As a result, all really ambiguous and 
wrong text was changed following my proposals (e.g. making the CDDL compatible
with the EU Copyright law). Fir the text you quoted, it was (after the 
discussion) obvious that this explains an option (not the default) for newly 
added files.

> > 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.
> If that is such obvious, maybe they could just make a deal and monetize 
> to you your parts since trey are using it in Solaris 11.
> Maybe you could ask them for compensation since they are obviously not 
> following CDDL and not releasing S11 source code in any part. Maybe 
> reaching some ground could be Ok for them, results of talks disclosed or 
> not.

This is of course an option for Oracle, but they did not chose this option as 
they currently illegaly distribute code. The interesting aspect of the German 
law is that it introduces a lever that never becomes statute-barred as long as 
the code in question is distributed ignoring the law.


> I have to mention, we have seen some source code leak at the S11 release 
> time (with CDDL all over it, probably still is, bu it is unknown outside 
> Orcl circles) so one can compare what they actually had inside at a time.
> It was strongly advised Not to look at it or reading it for reasons of 
> spoiling one's brain with something one can't use openly. Yet, I needed 
> to mention it :P

I believe, we should rather encourage Oracle to share their code again 
following the CDDL. THe uestion is whether we should sue Oracle and whether 
there would be people to support me if I did.

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/'