Joerg Schilling writes: > On FreeBSD, you need to have a very good reason if you like to include > a program that is less free (e.g. because it is GPLd) than the BSDL. > The reason is that the basic OS should be free enough. The FreeBSD > people like to be able to have a working system that does not depend > on GPLd software for it's basic functionality. > > I believe that similar rules should apply to OpenSolaris.
Whether Open Solaris is to develop the same sort of licensing fetish as some other open source project is, I believe, a matter for the CAB to determine, not an architectural matter. In terms of architecture, I don't necessarily care where the software came from. I care what stability it has, how it fits with the rest of the system, and whether other projects can use it for its intended purposes. The only place where licensing might come in is when the "use for intended purposes" is at odds with the licensing scheme. Absent that, it doesn't seem architectural in nature. Trying to develop some sort of General Jack D. Ripper "purity of essence" scheme for /usr/bin isn't something I think the ARC ought to do. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
