>If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see
>that as being healthy for us in any way.
Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the
GPL? Is "FSFThink" the only acceptable mindset?
>If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some
>merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for
>OpenSolaris.
But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will.
The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is "it's not GPL";
at least, I have not heard any rational arguments.
The GPLv3 move seems to have been invented to "fix" that issue
(if it needs fixing, we don't really need license zealots over here;
I say we keep politics out of software and that, to me, means keeping the
politics out of licensing also)
I fear that GPLv3 will do nothing to solve that. I think the
reactions will be predictable:
"Yeah, but Sun helped write GPLv3 so that nobody else could use
it/so that it is less free"
"Yeah, but OpenSolaris is under GPLv*3*; that's not the same
as being under the GPL, that refers to GPLv*2*".
They don't like us and they will continue not to like us.
This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not
need them to like us.
I think the questions that need to be answered have already been
asked but have yet to be answered:
- What problem is being solved by dual licensing?
- If the main GPL project in the OpenSolaris space is not
even considering GPLv3, what advantage does this have?
- What can be done against a "tear-off CDDL" community split?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
