Darren J Moffat 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. > > > 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.
Oh. Aha ... But _may_ be others would potentially come? I may not have enough insight here, and therefore won't make further statements. > > 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. > Okay, you brought a number of valid points. I only wanted a Pro-GPL_ver.? argument to be heard, before anyone engraves a final decision into stone (one never knows, who listens the list). --->> A balanced approach has to be found. <<--- One that equally well satisfies the psychology of the mass market, and - at the same time, if somehow possible - fits the code contributor/developer 's requirements, as discussed earlier here. It _is_ difficult to say, where OpenSolaris'licensing policy should go. In order to bring OpenSolaris.org, SUNW - and the user base - most beneficial results -- Martin Bochnig _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
