>If it were left to engineers, CDDL would be the way to go. >Definitely. However, there are legal issues (as aforementioned). But >more importantly, there are marketing issues. I am not talking 'b out >marketing to end-users, who probably could care less one way or >another, but about marketing to >open-source developers. In order to do the later, Sun probably has >two options, one is try to con vince them to erase their bias against >CDDL--I don't know how that's possible b/c most of them don' t even >care to read the licence.
Left to engineers? I'm not sure that engineers had all that much input. The most often heard argument is "It's not the GPL"; that of course is just insane and not really an argument but rather a statement of dogma and as such has no place in a *discussion*. >The second option is to try to re-package the OpenSolaris kernel to >make it GPL compatible. The m ore I think about it, the less I feel it >is impossible. But at least someone at Sun should give it >a thought. That presupposes that the powers-that-be actually want the GPL; apart from the technical issues there also seems to be the strong believe that Sun wants people to be able to stand on our shoulders and build a product on top of OpenSolaris *without* having to surrender their intellectual property. Sven doesn't want his "free" software "stolen"; we don't think you can actually "steal" something that is free. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
