{"id":"CDDL-1.1","title":"Common Development and Distribution License 1.1","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://javaee.github.io/glassfish/LICENSE","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models the second version of the Common Development and Distribution License, the later version of the text the library holds as CommonDevelopmentAndDistributionLicense10. Review decision 10 aligned the 1.0 record with MPL-2.0 and this record keeps that alignment. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2.1(a) grants rights \"under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Software\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission, and 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) grant patent licences, so dalicc:patentGrant is a permission. The existing 1.0 record carries neither statement although the 1.0 text has the same two clauses; it was not edited.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The grant excludes trademark rights, so dalicc:promote is a prohibition. Section 6.2 ends the grant sixty days after a patent claim is asserted, modelled as dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination and quoted. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited for the covered software in Source Code form.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The reciprocity of this licence is file level, not whole work: the Source Code form of the covered code must stay under this licence, while a Larger Work combining it with other code may be distributed as a single product. The record therefore attaches cc:ShareAlike to odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive rather than to the odrl:Set, which is the shape the existing CommonDevelopmentAndDistributionLicense10 record uses. cc:SourceCode, cc:Notice and cc:Attribution hang off the same three acts, and dalicc:modificationNotice off odrl:modify and odrl:derive.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Quoted verbatim: section 3.5, under which \"You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice\"; the whole of section 6, including the patent retaliation and the survival of end user licences; and section 9, which carries the applicable-law, venue and export-control sentences. The warranty and liability sections use the curly quotation marks of the source and are quoted word for word.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"minor","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"Section 9 defers the governing law to \"the jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original Software\", so the licence names no legal system of its own. cc:jurisdiction stays dalicc:worldwide and the clause is quoted. Section 9 also places export-control compliance on the licensee, which is quoted rather than modelled.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Two clauses have no vocabulary term. Automatic termination on breach with a cure period is a policy quality with no property to hang it on; proposed term dalicc:terminatesOnBreach as a property over the existing dalicc:terminationOnBreach concept. The survival of validly granted end user licences after termination has no term either; proposed term dalicc:sublicenseSurvival. Both clauses are quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the dependency graph dg_default returned an empty conflict list. cc:ShareAlike is required and dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which is the combination the check expects; asserting both cc:ShareAlike and a dalicc:ChangeLicense permission would have been reported as a direct conflict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"major","field":"record","description":"Follows licensedata/licenses/CommonDevelopmentAndDistributionLicense10.ttl. The 1.1 text differs from 1.0 in naming Oracle rather than Sun as license steward, in section 4.3 on modified versions of the licence itself, and in deferring the governing law to a notice in the Original Software instead of fixing it. None of that changes the deontic model, so the two records differ only by the patent and sublicence statements this record adds and by the quoted clause text.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Mozilla and CDDL","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"cc:legalcode points at the GlassFish copy of the text, which answers today; the older java.net URL SPDX lists first does not."}