Why would you need to remove CDDL from source?
The link to NetBeans was not meant to provide a sample for use in court but as an indication that reuse can be limited to the liberties provided by one of the licenses.
I think the term Sun\Oracle use is "Dual License" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
cam
On 12/04/2011, at 3:40 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
> 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
>>>>>