>> Assertion without proof. >Likewise your argument as well, but actual data is nearly impossible to >obtain until after the fact, so let's continue with our current working >theory.
Your working theory. Not "our" working theory. My working theory is "alienating 30% of the current community; little or no influx of new people. >> Who would this bring to our community? >> >The entire GNU community for one. Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do you mean the FSF? >We already bring in GPLv2 code. So we must therefore limit this >discussion to the kernel where I expect contributions to remain >relatively low away. No; we need to limit it to much of the core OS: the kernel *and* libraries. >Yes! So what's holding you up? ;-) So, what' sthe rush about the license change? Do you want to be on stage when Richard Stallman announces GPLv3? >Welcome to the world of open development. People will take our code. >That's good. In fact, it's happening already. Apple's XCode >(http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a kick-ass front-end >for their version of DTrace. I don't see them contributing that back to >OpenSolaris..... No, that's just fine; but they can already do that. But they can't publish the results without also allowing us to take the modification back; any dual license situation allows for just that. It adds needless complexity and needless risk of irreversible forking. And for what, a few minutes of PR? Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
