On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote: > I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if people think it would be a > good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris CDDL code with GPLv3. Of course that > depends on what the final outcome of GPLv3 is, but assuming it looks close to > what it is today, would you like that, not like that, or not care?
I've skimmed most of this (huge!) thread with interest. Here, for the record, are my thoughts so far on this subject, with the proviso that any final debate should wait until GPLv3 is finished. However, let me be clear: I am against the idea of dual-licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3. The CDDL is not an impediment to others using the code as intended (Mac OSX's use of DTrace and ZFS is evidense of this), so that's not a reason. If GPLv3 fixes GPLv2's viral problem (i.e., if part of a project is GPLed, then the whole project must be GPLed)--that is, allows GPLv3'ed code to be combined on a file by file basis with non GPLv3'ed code--then I still don't see the need to adopt it. The CDDL already allows such combining, so what would be gained? As others have pointed out, if this is some misguided attempt to appease the GPL worshippers, I think it is doomed to failure. Most of the GPLists I've seen are staunch supporters of v2, and are unlikely to embrace v3. Given that, their attitudes towards OpenSolaris are unlikely to change. Further, what about people who have already contributed code to OpenSolaris? Yes, they signed a Contributor Agreement, but presumably they did so in good faith, and assumed that their code would not be retroactively dual-licensed. The CA does not state in as many words that that is a possibility. Does the assignment of dual-copyright entitle the assignee to change the licensing terms, especially if it goes against the wishes of the code's originator? IANAL but I doubt it. And even if does allow it legally, is it morally right? How many people have contributed code BECAUSE OpenSolaris was licensed under the CDDL and not GPL? We (rightfully) made a big hoo-haw about CDDL when Solaris was first opened. In some circles, dual licensing could be seen as an admission of CDDL's failure. Frankly, who cares what prominant pro-GPL advocates think? I think most of them don't even get the intracies of the license anyway; they equate open source with the GPL, and that is clearly wrong. The CDDL is OSI-approved, encourages code sharing, mandates that changes to CDDLed code are made available to the community, yet protects entities' IP rights by allowing closed (proprietory) code to be mixed with open code (at a file granularity). Dual licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3 is neither necessary, nor IMHO, desirable, and it would take a LOT of persuasion to convince me otherwise. Respectfully, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
