On Wednesday 31 January 2007 10:55 am, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > 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.
My $0.02, this is a bad example. The fact is that Apple was not using it because of CDDL, but because the lack of a license that they couldn't use, GPL a case in point. What I would be completely against is if the license is changed to make it easier for Linux to use *our* technology, but end up in a continuing cluster [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the OpenSolaris side trying to use theirs. That seems like a situation we have to face today, and everytime a piece of GPL code comes into play, the leagal beagles want to sniff it to make sure there's nothing bad inside of it... The greyist area is with IHVs/OEMs who have device drivers that are GPL'd today, and Sun asks them to dual license under CDDL so it could be used. This could also present problems down the road in regards to GPL, I don't know for certain. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
