[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Yes.
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.
Well, some libraries, yes.
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?
No, I meant "what's holding up the OGB elections and constitution
ratification?" (I'm being cheeky here. :-))
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.
I'm not following. They don't necessarily have to publish their
changes. Remember that CDDL works on file boundaries. As long as their
changes are in separate files, they can keep them proprietary. Dual
licensing doesn't change this situation at all. That was my point.
Your fear of a fork has already happened. Dual licensing won't make
that better, but it won't make it worse either.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
