Who are the only ones who have a legal interest in the manner in which the CDDL-licensed code at issue is used.
The fact that other people issue code with a license with the same text has no bearing on anything.
> Saying that we should ignore the license text and treat the CDDL as compatible affects more than just the authors of the project we're talking about.
No one is saying that, the argument is that this is not legally a derived work of the GPL-licensed work, so that neither the GPL nor compatibility between the CDDL and the GPL is relevant. No one involved has argued that the CDDL is, or should be treated as, compatible with the GPL.
The CDDL-licensed code is being distributed under the CDDL alone, not the GPL. That's the whole reason some people on the GPL side are complaining. I can't even see what people on the CDDL side would have to complain about under any interpretation of copyright law or either license that anyone has publicly made ever.
Who are the only ones who have a legal interest in the manner in which the CDDL-licensed code at issue is used.
The fact that other people issue code with a license with the same text has no bearing on anything.
> Saying that we should ignore the license text and treat the CDDL as compatible affects more than just the authors of the project we're talking about.
No one is saying that, the argument is that this is not legally a derived work of the GPL-licensed work, so that neither the GPL nor compatibility between the CDDL and the GPL is relevant. No one involved has argued that the CDDL is, or should be treated as, compatible with the GPL.
The CDDL-licensed code is being distributed under the CDDL alone, not the GPL. That's the whole reason some people on the GPL side are complaining. I can't even see what people on the CDDL side would have to complain about under any interpretation of copyright law or either license that anyone has publicly made ever.