"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So unless you can point out _specific_ needs, wants, etc. that can't be
> met either now or with actions already underway, I just don't see what
> your point is. No particular license is IMO going to make that much of
> a difference in a positive way, and dual-licensing would just result in the
> giant sucking sound of code leaving and once modified a bit, not coming back.
> I have no problem with Solaris, Linux, and the *BSDs feeding each other
> ideas, but I think they'd mostly all be better off not using each others code
> all that much anyway (with some major exceptions that are largely possible
> except that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to go there; like porting
> zfs as a loadable module for Linux).
The important point is that the Linux folks just don't seem to want to use
code from OpenSolaris and you cannot change this by dual licensing.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
