But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL failure proofs?
Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed? And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing? On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:31 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: > No, but then again, you don't have any proof on the reverse case. > > The fact is that you really won't know until we do it, or don't do it, > and then see what happens. And it makes it really hard to make an > educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license. > > But we can make somewhat an educated guess now based on what we do > know. And we can always revise it as we obtain more data..... > > > > 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. > > > -- Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
