Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.
Permissive licenses grant the user rights, while prohibitive licenses reserve, limit or take the rights away.
One of the conditions to make sure the user really gets the advertized rights is to prohibit taking rights away, which is single restricted right in GPL.
Anyone who bullshits GPL essentially bullshits right to protect freedom.
Last edited by brosis; 02-11-2013 at 05:13 PM.
BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.
You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).
Might as well remove thier pants and bentover next to a sign saying "rape here for free"
There's nothing further from the truth. Linux was written from scratch and it has code very different from unix but causes it to act like unix. BSD is a copy of unix, no innovation or whatsoever just blatent copying of code.
BSD deserved that lawsuit. I just wished it had completely distroyed BSD. Ban them completely from touching the code.
Why does the GNU website differentiate between copyleft and permissive non-copyleft free software licenses, if all free software licenses are permissive?http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.htmlIn the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses.
Why can't we find one place on the whole site that the GPL is a permissive license?
Why does the Copyfree organization states that the Wikipedia definition is thehttp://copyfree.org/permissive/closest thing to a clear definition of the term "permissive license"
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
BSD was part of TCP/IP, virtual memory, file system, sockets, ARPANET... remember?
GNU/GPL was not part of a research project, hence no innovation, hence not academic.
2) No, GPL is not academic, as pointed earlied. BSD, on the other hand, was. Also, I'm not an extremist when it comes to open/closed source; I think open-source is valuable, and personaly I had learned a lot from it, but I don't see closed-source as an enemy, as is usually seen by the GNU/GPL camp.
3) I don't find GPL's protection mechanism as freedom, nor BSD's abscense of them as anti-free.
"The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called ‘copycenter’, which is ‘take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want.’"
—Kirk McKusick, BSDCon 1999
I don't depend on "GPL people" so I would give a fuck if they give a fuck.
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html and tell me that the BSD folks weren't fighting for freedom if you dare.
So, do you think that you, FSF, GNU, GPL or Richard Stallman really have the last word in this? You should stop thinking of yourselves as owners of the truth.
I think the term 'freedom' is one of the most controversial used throughout history, and neither of us are in the position to say what it is and what it isn't. The most we can do is say what represents closer our ideal of freedom
Also, notice that not everyone agrees with Stallman and the GNU/GPL project; it is not a BSD-exclusive thing. For example, look at the way Linus Torvalds thinks: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Torvalds is very critic with this whole issue: he likes GPL2, but does not agree with FSF, Stallman, GNU/GPL in all they say.