On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: >>> >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause' >> license, or BSD-old: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades? The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as perl. And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt you. >> > In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do >> > with GPL and CDDL as well. >> >> You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license >> (which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI). Fortunately, >> the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the >> GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized >> as both open source and GPL-compatible. But that hasn't - and >> probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual >> licensing. > > It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion. Not unless it is about how you or anyone else would be hurt by a dual license. Anything else is just ranting on both our parts. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com