Alan DuBoff wrote On 01/31/07 16:47,:
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:56 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
GPLv3 is taking shape?
Well, it looks ok, but it can and does continue to change.
As long as Sun can license the code to be the most compatible with other open
source software, I could really care less what type of license you put on it.
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.
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.
I think CDDL has clearly solved several issues for OpenSolaris, and it's
offered new opportunities as well (just as the other MPL-style licenses
offer their communities). But it will never be accepted by those who are
so obviously and viscerally against it. I would be disappointed to learn
that we may be considering v3 just so OpenSolaris would be better
accepted because that's a defensive reaction. In that sense, Casper's
right -- we don't need that. However, if we as a community are
considering this so we could potentially have more options for
development and this would help the community grow globally and there
are no major drawbacks, than that's a much stronger position to take.
Whatever we do, we should assert the positive, not react to the negative.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
