Joerg,
The last time I did read the GPLv3 draft, it was not even clear to me whether
GPLv3 really clearly allows a mix with other OSS licenses.
It is clear to me that the GPL of various descriptions is a license to
promote what the Free Software Foundation believes is software freedom;
the problem I have with the FSF is that there's more types of freedom
than just their type of freedom.
The GPL doesn't play well with many other licenses. That's because those
licenses are incompatible with the GPL but more importantly, the
creators of the GPL have a belief or policy that the other licenses are
not 'free' enough.
I doubt anyone could sensibly argue with this statement:
"Richard Stallman would like a software development world where all
source was available for everything."
That is an admirable goal; whether it is achievable in this "modern" age
is debatable. My stance tends more to be:
"David Lloyd would like you to give back to the community any changes
you make to his code but if you happen to couple his code with other
code that doesn't require the changes to be submitted, so be it.."
In other words, if you use my code I want the changes to be given back.
But I don't expect you to give away YOUR code simply because you've made
changes to MINE.
Hence, I tend to prefer the CDDL. If I were to develop the Best
Scheduler In The World and give it as open source to Sun AND Sun were to
make it even better [which I'm sure they could], I'd like those changes
back. However, when Sun releases Moonaris which incorporates my new
scheduler, I don't expect Sun to have to license all of Moonaris under
the CDDL; they could license it under the DEEM license for all I care
(so long as it's still a requirement to give back to me any changes they
make to the CDDL new scheduler).
Just my $0.02c...
DSL
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
