Darren J Moffat wrote: > > I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understand, and a dual > licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to > understand for developers. > > > Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge > amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual > licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a > good solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which > license it is under (just like the BSD license did). > >
Sure. But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to bitch OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not. Remember XFree vs. Xorg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg? They all have neglected XFree ... In an ideal world, the _best_ solutions would win over the less beautiful ones. But we don't live in such a world. I'm not a licensing expert (nor did I want to be one). But I'm following a few news sites/formus/boards/discussions/irc. OpenSolaris' general acceptance would certainly increase dramatically. And therefore probably attract more contributors and of course globally feed the community. --Martin _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
