Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not asking how you would change v3. I'll let the FSF continue to
> work the way it's working. If you want to get involved with that, fine,
> but that's not what I'm asking here.
As long as the GPLv3 still contains something like GPLv2 § 8, I would not call
the GPLv3 a really free license.
A big problem with GPLv2 is it's ambiguity. From an up-to-day OSS license, I
expect an explicit permission to combine the so licensed code with any other
code that is under any OSI approved license. Such an explicit permission (in
fact
more) is present in the CDDL but it is still missing in the GPLv3 (this was
true the last time I did read a GPLv3 draft).
If Sun is sure that OpenSolaris is a 100% Sun dominated project, this may not
be a problem but if OpenSolaris is a true OSS project, then the license scheme
should not prevent forking the code. While Sun may enforce dual licensing
for code that is delivered to Sun, Sun cannot enforce this for code that
has been contributed to a forked piece of code. Other people may wish to
benefit from such a contribution to a fork. If such a contribution is GPL only,
other entities (e.g. *BSD) are prevented from being able to use it.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
