>My concern is not so much the way that the FSF looks at the license even, my >concern is that pockets of the open source community are not accepting our >license. Maybe my concerns are invalid, but if any licensees of CDDL are >facing any type of problem, it can't be good.
I don't see that as an issue at all; and making a mountain out of a molehill is wrong. There will always be factions which believe they have the "one license to rule them all". And they won't be satisfied until we use theirs (or will claim that we are not "free") We should also not overlook the fact that some people are looking at OpenSolaris as an alternative for Linux *precisely because* we do not use the GPL; there are a lot of people who have issues with using GPL'ed code because of the viral clauses. Many of these we can get on board *only* if we do not use the GPL. (But we can't use the GPL, because ...) >Do you suggest waiting for GPLv3 to see if it is compatible with CDDL? Seems >we loose that much more time in doing so. No; I suggest not doing anything. And I suggest we win people over for the CDDL in those places where rational discussions are possible. But when rational discussion is not possible we should avoid the subject of license altogether because you can't win an argument if one side is not rational. Whether the GPLv3 is compatible is also completely irrelevant; the largest body of GPL'ed code (in importance) is Linux; it is not changing over to GPLv3 and if we'd change to GPLv3 we'd get into the same argument but this time over not using GPLv2. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
