No
GNU General Public License v2.0 is strong copyleft; combining it into a Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 project would force the combined work to be GNU General Public License v2.0 (not Common Development and Distribution License 1.0). If your project must remain Common Development and Distribution License 1.0, avoid GNU General Public License v2.0 code.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| GNU General Public License v2.0 (GPL-2.0) | strong-copyleft | No (implicit at most) |
| Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 (CDDL-1.0) | weak-copyleft | Yes |
GNU General Public License v2.0: Strong copyleft: derivative works distributed must also be GPL-2.0.
Common Development and Distribution License 1.0: File-level copyleft, similar in spirit to MPL.
If you found this page because you're trying to figure out whether shipping a particular dependency is safe, the answer above is a starting point — not a substitute for reading the actual licenses or talking to a lawyer when stakes are high.
LicenseHound walks every transitive dependency in your repo, maps each to its SPDX license, and flags pairs like this one in PR comments. The CLI is free; the team dashboard is paid.