RE: [avr-libc-dev] avr-lib-c-extentions library

[Rich Teer]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Weddington, Eric wrote:

> This one bothers me the most. From a first glance, the CDDL contains a
> lot of legalese. Almost need a lawyer to interpret. Constrast that with
> the BSD license which is simpler and more straightforward for
> non-lawyers to understand.

I guess it depends on the intents the authors of AVRlibC have for
their code.  The BSD, while being a great license, does not impose
upon people who modify the AVRlibC code the condition that their
changes be published.  In other words, under BSD, someone could take
the AVRlibC code and change it, but not be obliged to return those
changes back to the community.

The CDDL, on the other hand, stipulates that those changes MUST be
made available (much like the GPL).  The big difference between
the GPL and CDDL is that for the former, one must use the GPL for
the entire "project", whereas the CDDL makes no such imposition.
Provided the license for other code doesn't prohibit it, CDDLed
code can be mixed with any other (at a file granularity).

Most of the other legalese mumblage is about patent protection and
so on.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, SCSECA, OGB member

                                                    .  *   * . * .* .
                                                     .   *   .   .*
President,                                          * .  . /\ ( .  . *
Rite Online Inc.                                     . .  / .\   . * .
                                                    .*.  / *  \  . .
                                                      . /*   o \     .
                                                    *   '''||'''   .
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich                 ******************