On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:33 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Jim Grisanzio wrote: > >>> Also, there will be an enormous amount of > >>> software under v3 when it's done, so wouldn't that benefit us? Don't we > >>> want to grow faster? > >> It would enable that software to benefit from us, but not us to benefit > >> from them, since any software we take in from another GPLv3 project will > >> be GPLv3-only and unavailable to anyone who wishes to use the CDDL option. > >> Since the CDDL allows OpenSolaris distros to exist with our current model > >> of mostly source but some still encumbered binaries, while the GPL would > >> not, that would simply be cutting off our distros, which would slow growth, > >> not speed it. > > > > failed to understand you here... > > a) in case of dual-licensing model, distros will have full rights to > > choose under which license to progress. If they choose GPLv3, its their > > choice; > > Right - as long as all code was dual licensed - the implication of Jim's > statement was that dual-licensing our sources would allow us to benefit > from other GPLv3 code, but if we did pull that in, it would be GPLv3-only > and not dual licensed, and distros would have no choice on using it. > > > b) needed encumbered binaries should be considered as separate modules > > and still distro-builders will have full rights to re-distribute them. > > Will GPLv3 allow you to ship libc.so with most sources under GPL but > the i18n components closed source? I certainly didn't think GPLv2 > would.
Even GPLv2 allows that. The key is to ship closed beastie separately, i.e. to download on package installation, ask EULA, etc.. -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
