On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > The only statement that makes is that you misunderstand the licenses. > > A BSD-licensed project could require contributor agreements to avoid the > sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the BSD license to drop the > hated advertising clause and they had to get each copyright owner to agree > to relicense under the same terms.
This is not about license, it's about process. Today, as it stands, you can bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a contributers agreement, this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a contributer agreement (from Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what the BSD project requires. You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about Sun's legal team misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to know the legalities of these licenses pretty well, IMO. To me the statement this process makes is that BSD code is more open and free than CDDL code. CDDL was a good idea, it does much of what many felt was the best at the time. And just because someone like Apple is happy to take our free code in no way shows CDDL to be a success or accepted, it's when the changes get back into the mainline that one can place a value on that. -- 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]
