>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. > >I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-) > >> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely, >> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2? > >This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a >following to support it. Certainly time will show-all.
Which is why "now" is probably the wrong time to make any decision about GPLv3. I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g., a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon. Not if this turns out to be the event in history that is later remembered as "don't try to revise the GPL, we've tried that once and we failed". And for all the code moving to GPLv3, I can easily imagine that this too will cause a fork in the community, as all "GPLv2 or later" or "FSF own copyright" code can easily be forked to "GPLv2 or bust" licensing. >Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect >distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags. I would say that the CDDL license creates a level playing field; if you can't abide by the rules in that field, then you cannot play. We're not here to make live easy for anyone, or hard for that matter. We can consider issues raised but we then need to carefully weigh all the pros and cons. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
