On 21/11/2007, Herbert Snorrason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 21.11.2007, at 17:55, M Thomas Frederiksen wrote: > > Based upon the criteria that you've listed, there isn't any reason > > to prefer the GPL over the CDDL. But perhaps there is some other > > reason? > Yes, there is, and purely political. I believe the 'viral' clause of > the GPL to be a good idea, and that it is in more or less everyone's > interest to create the largest _single_ pool of free software commons > possible; in that case, adoption of the prevalent licence is for the > best. I believe the need for any of these licences to exist to be a > major flaw of copyright law, and that said law should be reconsidered > from the ground up. That said, the licence poses no threshold for me. > > > I find both licenses acceptable -- but I prefer the CDDL. I have an > > aversion to the GPL based upon the fanaticism that surrounds it. > > However, this is not an issue with the license itself. I also liked > > the CDDL because it is much shorter -- and offers patent protection, > > while the GPL v2 does not. Given the very real danger presented by > > software patents -- there is a very clear reason to avoid the GPL > > v2. I gather there are some also some problems with the GPL v3. > > However I have not read it, so I'm not real sure what they are. > The CDDL is shorter, but in my view far harder to understand. The GPL > was written by a layman, while the CDDL is the product of lawyers, > which does much to explain it. IMO there's been a lot of FUD around > GPLv3. Its patent clauses, for instance, are no harsher than the > CDDL's. The problem, of course, is that people are assuming that GPLv3 > will become widespread, and manage to actually cause problems for the > MAD balance of the patent arms race. Other issues with the GPLv3 would > mostly be the DRM stuff - which is really only directed against the > more insane parts of the DMCA, not DRM as such. > > > Isn't it strange that GPL worshipers can't imagine mixing the GPL > > with any other license -- and yet the LGPL was created for precisely > > that reason. Perhaps I'm simply not well-informed enough, but it > > appears to me that with use of the LGPL code can be exchanged > > between Solaris and Linux. > It's not really strange. The whole idea of the GPL is to use the legal > structure to enforce the creation of an expanding commons. It's a > clever hack, which unfortunately can't elegantly get around the legal > system's insistence on specific licences. The combination of copyleft > and virality thus creates the undesirable phenomenon of exclusivity. > This is a bug, but its root cause lies in the legal system, which you > can think of as the hardware the GPL software is running on. :) > > And for that last part: IANAL, but if you have a component that's > clearly enough demarcated, you should be able to have it LGPL and > legally combine it with the OpenSolaris internals. I'm just not sure > there's a point. > > With greetings, > Herbert Snorrason >
I can't *find* anything in this email I disagree with! Either you have used covert techniques to brainwash me, or I'm not looking hard enough! Or maybe I just agree with it. I particularly agree with the point about ease of being able to read the licence, however it should be pointed out that in a licence functionality has to come first and user friendly-ness second. I do agree that copyleft licences are a bug; and unfortunately a necessary one; though i would use virality to describe it (it plays into balmer's hands too much) As far as I can see, the main problem with putting opensolaris under GPLv3 is less the licence and more the inevitable problems associated with dual licencing with two copyleft licences. (essentially, two different forks as I see it.) -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk ---- If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________________________ gnusol-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-users
