|
Note that regardless of lawyers vs nerds, the CDDL is quite clear about what happens if a new version of the CDDL is released. 4.1. New Versions.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Except as provided in Section 4.3, no one other than the license steward has the right to modify this License."
Note that v1.1 of the CDDL replaces Sun Microsystems, Inc. with Oracle. Otherwise, this gives them the right to publish a revised and/or new version of the license. 4.2. Effect of New Versions.
You may always continue to use, distribute or otherwise make the Covered Software available under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software. If the Initial Developer includes a notice in the Original Software prohibiting it from being distributed or otherwise made available under any subsequent version of the License, You must distribute and make the Covered Software available under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software. Otherwise, You may also choose to use, distribute or otherwise make the Covered Software available under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by the license steward.
The second sentence here pins the license at the specific CDDL version, if one was specified in the original software. It's pretty unlikely that almost no one has specified a specific CDDL version. The last sentence gives the license recipient the ability to distribute under "any subsequent version of the license published by the license steward".Note that these two combined (regardless of lawyer or nerd) give a compelling case that it's plausible that Oracle could take that action. They won't, and I don't think they should, and I find it hard to see that it as remotely reasonable that they should be pressured to. However, if they did, then it's likely that it would be legal since each other CDDL contributor accepted the license, and relicensed their own code with the same possibility. Obviously some lawyer would make the case that it's not a new version since it has drastically different text, but at that point we're well into moot, counterfactual realms. |
That's exactly what I meant with lawyers<->nerds: publishing a radically different version is a nice hack, but may not hold up legally.
> but at that point we're well into moot, counterfactual realms.
That's what I meant with confusion. If the legal situation isn't entirely clear, the kernel team, distros and related companies might very well decide to play it safe.