On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge > mess of the project.
It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned, "assembly exception" could be provided, this is the tool Sun should use to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation issues. I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This would be a positive strategic step. I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will force it in distributions and because of "GPLv2 or later" clause in source files. -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
