Thanks for the hint! Much appreciated 🙌

The CDDL is GPL-incompatible though, so it can't be used in GPL projects, while the MPL 2.0 can, and only converts into GPL if the GPL already applies to your code. Also, the CDDL comes from Oracle, which is probably the single most likely company to ever sue you.

@@BosonCollider If you want to allow your CDDL Covered Software to be used in GPL Covered Software then all you need to do is dual license your code. This is how MPL 2.0 works under the hood but the MPL has this anti-feature on by default; this is an invitation for License Contamination, and unless you read the fine print you probably won't find that out until it's too late. Even Mozilla admits that they can't really prevent License Contamination from viral licences like the GPL. The solution that The Mozilla Foundation and The Free Software Foundation came up with is simply to ask GPL users to play nice. Legally speaking, unless compatibility is explicitly rejected, nothing is stopping you from using MPL 2.0 Covered Software in GPL Covered Software under the terms of the GPL and distributing your modifications to the MPL 2.0 Covered Software under the terms of the GPL ONLY (at which point those modifications become unavailable to other users of the MPL 2.0 Covered Software.) By using the MPL 2.0 without explicitly disabling Secondary License Compatibility you are effectively just licensing the Covered Software under all of the Secondary Licenses. This cannot happen with the CDDL since you have to explicitly dual license the Covered Software under the GPL (and any other incompatible license) if you decide you want to offer compatibility. That is your choice. This way is cleaner, safer and more flexible! The CDDL 1.0 is from Sun and CDDL 1.1 was never submitted for certification. Regardless, the CDDL allows you to specify the versions of the CDDL that the Covered Software is under and negates any potential harm caused by The Omnipotent License Steward. The only safe way to do this with the MPL 2.0 is to fork the license and that should be considered a non-starter (your new license will not be certified etc. and if every software project that uses the MPL 2.0 did this then there would be tens of thousands of MPL 2.0 derived licences around and we would have to read every single one...) NOTHING in any version of the CDDL gives Oracle the right to sue you without cause so I really don't know what you're getting at there. That is just not how Software Licenses work. The License Steward of these licenses just reserves the right to release new versions of the license in the future; leaving provisions in place that allow software under an earlier version of the license to be used under the terms of the future version (a fantastic feature if you have absolute trust in the current and all potential future versions of the license in question i.e. what if Oracle were to take over Mozilla and release a new version which is "evil"?! With no ability to opt-out in the MPL 2.0, all users of the MPL are royally screwed! In their infinite wisdom, Sun gave CDDL users just such an opt-out and this saved every CDDL user from any harm Oracle might cause!) TL;DR the MPL 2.0 is a frankly unusable software licence. It inherits many serious problems from earlier versions of the MPL that the CDDL fixes, and new issues that the CDDL never suffered. Sun's CDDL is the license MPL 2.0 should have been and hopefully what MPL 3.0 will be when people finally wake up to the flaws in the MPL 2.0.e The CDDL isn't perfect: the CDDL inherits The Omnipotent License Steward from the MPL, but allows you to opt out of future versions by stating "CDDL-X.Y Only" (a feature shared with the GPL 2+), to simply and effectively negate the CDDL-1.0's only notable flaw.

I think it falls under license rules. Since all that matters is that you are using the software, no matter how, your scopes and needs, unless the license specify it.

Exactly!

I think it could matter, if I'm understanding correctly what you mean by "prod" and "dev". Imagine making some software, writing all the code yourself, but the text editor you're using is under the GPL. I don't think that would be an issue (the software you make wouldn't contain any parts of the text editor that you used). If you take that text editor and improve it, then the improved version of the text editor should probably be under the GPL, but that would still only matter if you give other people copies of the improved text editor. Or at least that's how I understand it (I'm not a lawyer, or even a native speaker of English, so probably take this with a grain of salt).

@@sealiteral432 dev as in some depency that is used at development time. But not as decoupled as the IDE you're using. Think maybe you need a language that compiles to another language. The one you deploy is the second, but you write and depends on the first one.

It depends on what kind of software you want to go into. Javascript is the lingo franca and popular with web devs, c++ for game dev, and so on

What you are describing would require a bespoke proprietary license or a dual license model, you should talk to an IP lawyer that has experience drafting licenses. You can write one yourself, but if you actually want to make sure that the license is enforceable (its very easy for non-lawyers to mess up legalese) it's better/easier to spend some money on a good lawyer.

It’s lame I know :D

​@@SoftwareDeveloperDiariesdefinitely not, i learned alot and am thankful.

“That’s life” - Frank Sinatra