Hi Erast, > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: > > Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're > > trying to solve with such a licensing change? > > its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping > factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed their stuff, isn't it? >
Not sure (consider Netscape section in AOL), but if it is truth - the results? I'm not sure that it was successful, really. Anyway this thread wasn't started in good direction, I think. Why should we consider negatives? At first this should be about positives. GPLv3 (and why only GPLv3?) advocates should come with arguments, why GPLv3 is so good for OpenSolaris project. But I saw only "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes" from them... But: How can you argue? Do you know final GPLv3 already? Do you already know the impact on Open Source world? Please, stop and come with real arguments. When FSF will publish their license and it will be accepted by "GPL community"... Then we can think about dual-license. And that proposal from Stephen Harpster about GPLv3 with "assembly exception" (I don't know what it means...) - in the case that FSF will accept this, are you sure that "GPL community" will accept it? Best regards, -- Milan Jurik Revenue Product Engineer Sun Microsystems Inc. - Prague Czech Republic JKJ: "I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours." P.S.: I'm sorry that I'm sending it from sun.com, but I would like to be member of the OSOL community... _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
