On 31-Jan-07, at 8:51 AM, Erast Benson wrote:
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 meant more for contributors who want to pull in changes from
another gpl3 project, for example... it won't be possible to package
that with the CDDL fork of opensolaris, only the gpl3 fork
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 absolutely agree. I'm pro-gpl3, just not pro dual license
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.
If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be
more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in
the world
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
