OK. libc is a funky example. I was trying to say that we can take back
other licenses exactly as we do today. (There are all kinds of GPLv2
apps in OpenSolaris today.) Dual-licensing will not change that.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Stephen Harpster wrote:
Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are
licensed under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or
you're stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other
pieces of OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the
kernel. You can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.)
and this is really really bad for OpenSolaris. Note that my
understanding is that this does NOT only apply to the kernel. If
someone contributes some very cool code for a file in libc but only
makes it available under GPLv3 and not CDDL can we integrate that into
the OpenSolaris dual-licensed code base ?
The very fact that we need to have discussions like this about how
daul licensing could work and grant explicit exceptions means it is
too complex.
Keep the licensing simple and fair (in both directions!) and the
developers will come. Dual licensing for me fails the simple and
fails the fair in both directions. Maybe it is because I don't
understand it but that probably shows it isn't simple enough.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
