> That's nice, but it's only one side. What about the opinion of the developers who wrote the module and licensed it under CDDL?
The developers' opinions don't matter. All contributors used to have to sign a CLA to give copyright to Sun. Then Sun was bought by Oracle. So you should care about what Oracle thinks about copyright infringement.
> The incompatibility between CDDL and GPL is well-known, and the authors at Sun made it that way deliberately.
No, that's bullshit. CDDL (which is just the MPL) is a file-based copyleft because that's what license fitted their requirements. It's not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of "derivative work" that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works.
> That's nice, but it's only one side. What about the opinion of the developers who wrote the module and licensed it under CDDL?
The developers' opinions don't matter. All contributors used to have to sign a CLA to give copyright to Sun. Then Sun was bought by Oracle. So you should care about what Oracle thinks about copyright infringement.
> The incompatibility between CDDL and GPL is well-known, and the authors at Sun made it that way deliberately.
No, that's bullshit. CDDL (which is just the MPL) is a file-based copyleft because that's what license fitted their requirements. It's not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of "derivative work" that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works.