Re: groff alternative?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, David O'Brien wrote:

DO>On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:24:07PM +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
DO>> today I read a news article (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60600) 
DO>> about OpenSolaris beeing released, but is there also the groff alternative 
DO>> included?
DO>> I'd love to see a lean replacment for our current gnu version.
DO>
DO>Before everyone gets all happy thinking we can incorporate all kinds of
DO>bits from Open Solaris - one should read the license agrement first.
DO>
DO>    COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE Version 1.0
DO>    ..
DO>    3.1. Availability of Source Code.
DO>    Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
DO>    in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form
DO>    and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of
DO>    this License. 
DO>
DO>this puts the CDDL1.0 in the same boat as GPL'ed code from a BSD stand
DO>point.

I think that's not entirely correct. If you read the other statements 
you'll find that you can put together CDDL covered files with files 
covered by any other license (given that the other license allows this) 
and distributed that. In this case you don't need to distribute the pieces 
that are covered by the other license. Let's say you take a CDDL-ed 
program, add a function call in some of the files and put that function 
into a file with a closed license. You need to distribute only the file 
with the function call added. You don't need to distribute the new file 
with that function. Of course that new file will not be CDDL covered.

harti