
New OSS License: the CDL - ibejoeb
http://supertunaman.com/cdl/cdl_v0-1.txt
======
anthonyb
The interesting part is the response from the OSI, who appear to be taking it
at least semi-seriously. According to The Register (
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/26/chicken_dance_open_s...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/26/chicken_dance_open_source_license/)):

 _"Clause 4 appears to conflict with OSD clause 5 because people with
disabilities or cultural obligations preventing them from either singing or
dancing (or religious issues portraying chickens) would not have equal
freedoms under the license,"_

and

 _"It also violates OSD clause 6 as it would prevent use in the plinth
industry"_

~~~
tzs
The OSI spokesman appears to be have not really understood the license. It is
really two licenses. The first 3 clauses are the open source license. The 4th
clause gives an alternative non-open license that the software is available
under for those who do not wish to use an open source license.

------
trebor
I've never actually laughed when reading a license before. This is so funny
that I might have to make a new project JUST to license it with the CDL.

------
bradshaw1965
I prefer the original CDL, the commercial drivers license, with that you can
certainly go far.

~~~
perspective
zing!

------
adulau
The section 4. makes this a proprietary license.

~~~
anthonyb
You need to read a little more closely. Section 4 is just stuff you have to do
if you _don't_ want to redistribute with source code.

 _4\. An entity wishing to redistribute in binary form or include this
software in their product without redistribution of this software's source
code with the product must also submit to these conditions where applicable:
..._

------
furbearntrout
But plinth is a perfectly cromulent word.

~~~
joedavis512
Indeed, it embiggens the validicity of the license.

------
adrianN
Instead of making up joke licences someone should sit down and write a licence
tailored for software that is roughly equivalent to a CC-BY-SA-NC.

~~~
nickbp
NC would conflict with the Free Redistribution criteria of the Open Source
Definition[1], and BY would be the equivalent of the "obnoxious BSD
advertising clause"[2].

And besides all that, I really don't think the world needs yet another GPL-
incompatible licence. You effectively wall off your code from being used in
the vast majority of the ecosystem and vice-versa, and you end up with a
scenario like Sun's CDDL where developers have a disincentive to work on your
code due to its incompatible licensing, and they have to jump through hoops to
integrate it with anything else. Unless those effects are desirable to you,
you're better off just picking a compatible licence[3].

[1] <http://opensource.org/docs/osd>

[2] <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html>

[3] <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>

~~~
adrianN
Yes, I know it's not "proper" open source if you can't sell it, but I think
there is clearly a demand for that kind of licence.

------
steipete
Oh please, this is a bad joke, not even funny.

