[jgowdy]

What we do know is the intent of the developers in open sourcing their work and that those working on these ports are violating that intent. They specifically chose this license with the belief that it protected their software from being consumed by GNU/Linux.

The counterargument, maybe their license doesn't block us from using their work in the way they think it does, and until it's proven in court we won't know is extremely offensive and self-serving.

This is the same argument raised by many GPL violators. "The GPL hasn't been proven well enough in court in my jurisdiction so I'm just going to use your code in violation of your license terms."

This is theft, an open source license violation, and lawyering to defend that theft. It violates the principles of open source. We are literally discussing an OSI approved license. I believe that any responsible member of the open source community would respect the authors license and not try to lawyer their license out of your way so you can have their code on your terms.

If this was Linux devs and GPL, rather than Solaris devs and CDDL, everyone would be on the other side of this argument. It's hypocrisy and it should be called out.

[p_l]

Do we actually "know"? Cause I "know" that the opposition to GPL was not to make it incompatible with GPL (which is a point of contention actually, and hits deeply into question of when a code is derived code). The point was that making OpenSolaris GPL would block integration chances with NON-GPL projects.

In fact, at least one anecdote points out that Sun expected CDDL components to make it into Linux source, just like cases of other non-GPL components in the past (AFS, for example)