On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:55 -0800, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > > > > 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. > > Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- > major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS > port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that > the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license > would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely > say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's > adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for > OpenSolaris.
i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company, not a community. Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement. > To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys > the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing > doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to > non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we > _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve. -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
