>>> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
we think about GPLv3. What would it
>>> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
>>> could attach an "assembly exception"
>>> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
up a
>>> world of possibilities.
>>> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
>>> GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with
>>> an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
>> Two things come to mind right away :
>> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
and her officers.
>> Such a move would, in my mind, toss the OpenSolaris Charter and
Governance out the window.
>
> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As the
copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch - but
this is not a unilateral executive decision.
No. I read clearly. This is a call for opinion.
For what purpose? To what effect ?
I have been here, involved since the pilot back in the days when Jason
Perlow was also in the pilot. Back when Danese Cooper was working on the
creation of a new license called the CDDL. A license that is perfectly
viable, presented and accepted by the OSI:
http://news.com.com/Sun+license+gets+open-source+nod/2100-7344_3-5540961.html
So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have an opinon
with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put "Java" in front of everything.
Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people that are NOT
joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that did NOT
arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX operating system.
Back in 2005 we were not looking at the GPL which would have been a viable
license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL? Why are we
now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of OpenSolaris?
Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of people
NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we rename
this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community Source
License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix something.
There are far more important issues to ask in this project :
(1) why do we have source that can not be built into a runnable OS ?
(2) why are key components held back ? libc_i18n.a for example
This call for opinions and discussion feels like something from that movie
"wag the dog" in which we are asked to raise awareness and market value.
Its not a particularly fun process to watch a project for two years and see
such tepid levels of community activity. Certainly after so much fanfare
and hoopla.
If slapping yet another legal document on top seems to help then fine. I
would like to see the GPLv3 complete first and officers of Sun INC should
not be discussing the issue *here* until it is a complete document. Its
outside of the scope of the OpenSolaris project and not our venue. I am
more concerned with getting software that helps people into their hands.
Its like feeding hungry people. You can stand on the sidelines talking and
talking about world hunger or you can go out and actually feed them. I'd
rather just get real work done please.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
