From: Florian Obser <florian@openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add POSIX O_CLOFORK flag
To: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 15:59:23 +0200

On 2025-06-22 15:40 +02, Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ricardo Branco wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 01:42:51PM +0200:
>
>> What is the policy for including CDDL code?
>> The Illumos tests are CDDL.
>
> That means we cannot use the Illumos tests.
> If we want test coverage, someone has to sit down and write
> new tests from scratch and put them under a free license.
>
> Mostly due to ZFS, the CDDL comes up often enough that i think
> making our position clear on policy.html would be beneficial.
>
> While the criticism of the GPL and the Apache 2 license is well
> known, awareness is less widespread in the general public of why
> the CDDL is not a free license, so i deem explaining this in some
> detail worthwhile.
>
> What do developers think about the following patch to augment
> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html ?

I have no opinion, but I was curious what CDDL is about. I spotted two
typos while reading.

>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>
> Index: policy.html
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/www/policy.html,v
> diff -u -r1.45 policy.html
> --- policy.html	25 Jul 2021 22:55:35 -0000	1.45
> +++ policy.html	22 Jun 2025 13:21:16 -0000
> @@ -334,6 +334,38 @@
>  tools is a long-term desideratum.
>  <p>
>  
> +<dt>CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License
> +by Sun Microsystems)<dd><p>
> +This is a copyleft license, see paragraph 3.1 of the license terms,
> +so what was said above about the GPL applies.
> +
> +<p>
> +While paragraph 3.6 of the license terms allows combination
> +of CDDL-licensed code with code that is under other licenses,
> +which makes it less hostile towards cooperative development
> +than the GPL, that permission is not sufficient for making CDDL-licensed
> +code suitable for inclusion into OpenBSD.  Due to the copfleft nature,

s/copleft/copyleft/

> +OpenBSD still considers CDDL a non-free license.
> +
> +<p>
> +There is a second reason why OpenBSD considers CDDL-licensed code
> +unacceptable for inclusion.  It is not a pure Copyright license.
> +Instead, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 taint it with aspects of patent
> +and contract law, paragraph 6.2 states that license rights
> +terminate for users who get into patent litigation with contributors
> +over the software, and paragraph 6.1 states that license rights
> +terminate for users violating license conditions, all of which makes
> +the code not fully free.  On top of that, paragraphs 9 and 10 place
> +additional, onerous contractual obligations on users and contributors.
> +
> +<p>
> +While nobody is allowed to violate OpenBSD licensing terms, even people
> +who violate the terms retain the right to use and redistribute OpenBSD
> +in accordance with the terms.  That this right cannot be taken away
> +ftom anyone for any reason is necessary for software to be truly free.

s/ftom/from/

> +CDDL-licensed code is not free in that sense.
> +<p>
> +
>  <dt>NetBSD<dd><p>
>  Much of OpenBSD is originally based on and evolved from NetBSD, since some
>  of the OpenBSD developers were involved in the NetBSD project.  The general
>

-- 
In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.