>Don't think so, the real point is not GPLing opensolaris, but making the CDDL >LGPL compatible, or at least the userland part of OpenSolaris, which would >allow for a nice intermingling of both LGPLed and CDDL userland, GPL >compatibility would be nice too, but less important, and maybe more difficult >to justify on sun's side.
So what does "LGPL" compatible mean? There doesn't seem to be any reason to disallow LGPL libraries with CDDL libraries nor does the CDDL prohibit mixing in any other type of code in the same binaries. So what issue do you see with mixing LGPL and CDDL? >Now, i believe the OpenSolaris kernel itself is not a problem, since it is >devoid of any GPL/LGPLed code (am i right there ?). If this where not the >case, OpenSolaris would be undistributable, so i guess Sun didn't burden in >this way, especially not when claiming to have the lawyers look over all the >code all that time back. Quite; there's no GPL/LGPL code in the kernel. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
