Martin Bochnig wrote:
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 ...
You can't compare this to the XFree86 licensing issue. XFree86 actually
moved to a *more restrictive* license. If any open source project moves
to a license that is considered to be more restrictive, while it is
already under widespread use, it is only natural that there would be a
problem.
In this case (yes, this is my personal opinion), the main problem is
distrust of Sun, being a big company. The CDDL was created by Sun, so
there is distrust there. I think it is more important to gain the trust
of the community by showing that we're very serious and committed to
open source, by making the transition to open development complete, and
have more easily accessible bugfiling/reviewing/committing mechanisms in
place.
It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and
if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I
have my doubts.
- Frank
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
