On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Erast Benson wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: > >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that > >> dual licensing is trying to solve? > > > > one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. > > > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 > > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL > > project just because of that. > > Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to > OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed > or single licensed under GPLv3 ? > > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? > > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on > either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual > CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence > only opinions about what might happen.
Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
