Alan DuBoff wrote On 01/31/07 17:46,:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
I think we view this differently, but as long as we're considered free, I'm ok
with that.
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.
I'm not banking on it in any way, it's not even complete.
The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is "it's not GPL";
at least, I have not heard any rational arguments.
I think in some ways the reason some have issue with it is that it's Sun.
Wouldn't matter if it was SCSL, or another Sun license, they would take issue
with it.
They don't like us and they will continue not to like us.
I don't completely believe that 100%.
This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not
need them to like us.
Sure, but it does us little good to be at odds with them, I don't see how that
could help us.
I don't think these particular parties will ever agree on the
philosophical issues of the licenses (not in their current form), but I
do think we can earn all the credibility we need with just being
successful in our own right. At the end of the day, it all comes down to
the quality of the code and the viability of the community. We've
already come a long way on these points. So, I guess I agree with bits
of both of your points. :)
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?
I believe so that software can co-exist with other licensed code. I know
you'll argue that CDDL does this today, and at a cost to use in how some open
source communities view it. They view it as Sun, and Sun is bad in their
view.
I don't care what license is used, I care only about acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software that we can be accepted by.
- 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?
For me the big difference is the fact that GPLv3 will remove the grey area of
device drivers and linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's
never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems
should use it.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
