Richard Lowe wrote:
OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
That's nothing but random (semi-humorous I guess) nitpicking, and you
know it.
That's why I had a smiley face there.
So far, in this sub thread. You've somewhat implied that those of us
not employed by you are unable to fix problems in the code (for
reasons other than process), and matter less both in these decisions,
and in general, and then have thrown in random things like the above.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that simply the majority of
contributers work for Sun. Period. If that changes, nobody will be
happier than me.
If you the community didn't matter, I would just change the license and
be done with it. Instead, we're having this discussion because I
believe that OpenSolaris is indeed open and that we as a community must
reach consensus one way or another.
What *exactly* are you intending to gain from this argument other than
the distrust of anybody both involved in this process and not directly
subordinate to you?
I'm trying to determine if a dual-license is a good idea or not. For
the record, some of the people that have so far spoken against a
dual-license do indeed work for me. That's ok. This is a free and open
discussion. I'm not trying to strong arm people, but I do want to
address potential issues. Some very valid concerns have been raised,
but there's also been a lot of panicking, sky is falling, side tracking
off to unrelated issues, etc. I want to separate the valid concerns
from the noise and see if the valid concerns can be addressed. If not,
then you have valid reasons for not doing a dual-license.
I don't see why open discussion would generate distrust. I would have
thought the reverse.....
P.S. Nobody has yet asked me what my opinion is. For the record, I'm
still on the fence.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
