Subject: Re: For Approval: Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:27:39 -0500

ROD DIXON, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:

> The definition of modification in section 1.9 of the CDDL uses
> the word "modification" which renders the meaning tautological; sections
> 1.3(b) and 3.2 also refer to modification, but do not clarify whether the
> legal meaning of derivative work is meant.  

Well, technically 1.9 defines "Modification" in terms of "modification";
the latter is a CDDL-specific term, the former is general language for
a change of any sort.

> As an aside, the CDDL appears to
> allow the distribution of an executable under a license that differs from
> the CDDL (and the accompanying source code).

Quite so.  It's semi-reciprocal, like the MPL or (more distantly) the LGPL.

> In doing so, the license
> reminds me that the OSB has not been revised to better ensure that a license
> like the CDDL cannot be used to wrap the executable in a DMCA technology in
> order to fork the source code surreptitiously. 

Surreptitious forking is pretty much undetectable with a license like this.

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan  http://www.reutershealth.com