What he doesn't do (and I'm not going to do it either) is answer the key question -- is this an open source license at all?
Sun insists it is. Sun says it's based on the license for Mozilla, with a few tweaks (PDF warning on that link).
"So, we have yet another open source license for developers to mull over," Joe writes.
But do we?
The term open source is being used to describe so many things one needs a law degree to understand that it's beginning to lose all meaning.
How far down the road toward proprietary control can a so-called "open source license" go before it's no longer really open source?
So, does the CDDL "jump the shark" on open source? Should the Open Source Initiative tell Sun to put another term on it?
And if they do, what is the uncrossable line Sun crossed, between open source and something else?