Cam,
unfortunately your assumption is not correct in most countries. No need
to be a lawer. Things are just simple as this: Unless Oracle explicitly
allows you to remove the CDDL tags from the source, the CDDL applies to
your fork, still. It is written nowhere that *you* can choose for one
the licences. So it is common sense that it *us* a union unless you gain
Oracle's written permission to split licences. About your NetBeans
sample: Jersey is not NetBeans, and Oracle might have different
interests in different products. And, "Propose" does not mean "Applies"
or "Grants".
Regards
Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Heavon-Jones [mailto:cmhjones_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 16:30
To: users_at_jersey.java.net
Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
IANAL (or Oracle :) but....
If you want to *contribute* to Jersey it makes sense that contributions
are covered by all licenses.
For a for fork, the code is provided under GPL and provides the ability
to modify and redistribute as GPL. Any attempt at changing the
inalienable rights provided by GPL would make it incompatible with the
GPL and defeat the point of licensing under GPL.
if this is wrong it would be good to have clarification. Looking at the
netbeans project tho:
http://netbeans.org/gplv2-faqs.html
"Sun proposes to introduce GPLv2 with Classpath exception for NetBeans
software as a second license option along with CDDL."
I note the use of "option".
cam
On 12/04/2011, at 3:10 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
> I also thought so but Oracle told me that if I want to contribute
> something, then it IS a union and I MUST accept CDDL and sign a
> contract. Also, I do not see where the CDDL allows to just remove it.
> The licence applies to every copy until Oracle allows you to remove
it.
> Can you please point me to the lines in the CDDL where it says that
you
> can remove it as soon as you don't want to keep it in your fork?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones [mailto:cmhjones_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 16:06
> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>
> The CDDL is for common development on the Jersey project, not forking.
> There is nothing stoping GPL from being forked and the fork can even
be
> kept private as long as it's not distributed.
>
> I understand the CDDL + GPL as an either\or choice, not a union.
>
> cam
>
> On 12/04/2011, at 2:55 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
>
>> That would make sense if lots of users would want to maintain forks
>> while still accepting CDDL. How much users do want to do that?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Schindl [mailto:tom.schindl_at_bestsolution.at]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:53
>> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>
>> For me its exactly the opposite the more controlled a project is the
>> better it is to use DVCS because if the one big player is refusing to
>> integrate my patch (because of whatever reason) it is much more
easier
>> to main my own fork and merge with HEAD every now and then.
>>
>> So +1 for git from me.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> Am 12.04.11 15:47, schrieb Markus Karg:
>>> That would make sense if it would be Jersey's target to be community
>>> controlled. But actually it is Oracle developed and with so few
> people
>>> that SVN is far from being exhausted. I do not see that there are so
>>> many community contributions that a centralized repository would be
>>> needed. As long as every contributor has to sign a contract with
>> Oracle
>>> and support CDDL (instead of solely GPL or LGPL) I do not see that
>>> Jersey would really become a community driven project. Currently
>> Jersey
>>> is an Oracle-only project and nothing that I have experienced so far
>>> would convince me that a change is really in progress.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones [mailto:cmhjones_at_gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:41
>>> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
>>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>>
>>> Workflow aside, a DVCS provides an infrastructure which is capable
of
>>> being developed and extended in an non-centralized way. That isn't
>> about
>>> having a decentralized software architecture but non-centralized
>>> organizational control.
>>>
>>> A GPL project should provision for community dissension and a DVCS
>>> provides this as infrastructure.
>>>
>>> cam
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2011, at 2:01 PM, Mohan KR (mkannapa) wrote:
>>>
>>>> + 1 SVN.
>>>>
>>>> I would echo the same comments, if the current workflow is
supported
>>> by SVN, why on earth would one
>>>> want to switch to a DVCS. I have used both GIT/Hg, yeah I see the
>>> benefits of local repositories for a
>>>> really distributed teams. But if one is going to "centralize" it
>>> (push/pull), to synchronize the "nodes", I say
>>>> what's the point?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mohan KR
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Marek Potociar [mailto:marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:31 AM
>>>> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
>>>> Subject: [Jersey] SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>>>
>>>> Hey Folks,
>>>>
>>>> For Jersey 2.x we are considering to switch our VCS from SVN into
> Git
>>> or Mercurial. Sticking to SVN is still an option too. FWIW, here's
my
>>> take on the topic:
>>>>
>>>> - Functionality:
>>>>
>>>> SVN meets most of our existing needs today, I do miss the agile
>> nature
>>> of DVCS though and ability to fix a recent commit.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a clear DVCS winner. Mercurial is compact and easier
to
>>> learn, esp. if one comes from the SVN background.
>>>> It has superior branching and merging support compared to SVN. It's
>>> branching concept however seems to be seriously flawed as it is
>>> virtually impossible to delete named branches. Also, it is not as
>>> flexible as Git and configuring it's extensions can be painful.
>>>>
>>>> Git is faster than Mercurial, super flexible, and "unix-like" set
of
>>> coherent tools sharing a common platform rather being one compact
>> piece
>>> of software. It is thus bendable to most esoteric work flows. Also
>> it's
>>> merging algorithm is ...wait for it... LEGENDARY! :) Learning to get
>>> full use of Git however requires time (and practice).
>>>>
>>>> - Documentation:
>>>>
>>>> SVN and Mercurial both seem to provide superior documentation
>> compared
>>> to Git.
>>>>
>>>> - Tooling:
>>>>
>>>> SVN has a great tooling support and so does Git. I don't have a
>>> significant experience with Mercurial, but I suppose it will be on
> par
>>> with Git and SVN.
>>>>
>>>> - Adoption:
>>>>
>>>> SVN is very popular. Also Git appears to gain larger portion of
mind
>>> share every day. Git community is very active and visible, e.g.
>>> github.org is especially vibrant. It has almost 10x larger community
>>> than bitbucket.org for Mercurial.
>>>> Mercurial community seems to be both smaller and "quieter".
>>>>
>>>> So, what would you, members of the community, prefer to use going
>>> forward?
>>>>
>>>> [ ] SVN
>>>> [ ] Git
>>>> [ ] Mercurial
>>>>
>>>> Please cast your votes!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marek
>>>>