Erast Benson wrote:
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?
No, because cdrecord isn't OpenSolaris, and I don't believe in looking to external communities for validation of what *our* community is doing. Both the BSD and Apple folks seem to be able to work with us, which suggests the problem is neither us nor the CDDL.
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?
No, because I don't agree with your premise that there has been "almost zero participation". For example, the volume & heat on this alias today reminds me of the heady days of perl5-porters - well known in the past for being the abode of Those With Asbestos Undergarments ;-) Just because we are a still relatively small community, it doesn't make us a *dead* community.
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?
No, because their primary beef is Linux versus Solaris, *not* GPL versus CDDL. If they weren't beating us with the license stick, they be using something else instead. Trying to satisfy the Linux community is wrong-headed, the only community that's we need to satisfy is *our* community.
-- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
