Martin Bochnig wrote:
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.
and there in is the big issue, if you aren't a lawyer dual licensing is
a nightmare to understand and it is so even if you are.
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.
and personally I don't think it will. Whats more I think if GPL is
adopted as the sole license or under a dual license we may actually lose
some very important community members and loose out on possible OEM or
applicance systems built from OpenSolaris.
Which one of us is correct ? We can't say but for me I don't think the
risk of a GPL license is worth it since I can't see that it provides any
value or any access to a useful amount of code if done in a dual license
way.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
