Simon Phipps wrote:
The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing
redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I
believe you're required to allow people to do this.
So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed
under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license
situation with a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't...
I don't see it as a mess. The reason the assembly exception will be
present is to allow the distribution of combinations of code under
incompatible licenses. Remove the exception (which as you say has to be
possible) and distribution is no longer permitted. I believe this would
pose a barrier to almost all potential abusers.
Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:
1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception
is removable
The result would not be distributable with closed binaries and more.
2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL"
licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)
Not at all - as the exception can be dropped the purists can always have
their code. They just have to replicated the closed binaries as GPL
software, which they would want to do anyway. "Just".
Bearing in mind your statement about The Wrath Of The Lawyers(tm) I'm
not expecting you to necessarily answer, but I have a question about the
scenarios you outlined above:
From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code. When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
problems that entails?
Bearing in mind that removal of the existing closed binaries is probably
going to be one of the areas where the non-Sun community members can
help us most, because they haven't been tainted, I don't think the
current situation where you need closed binaries to for a usable
distribution is going to remain for all that long, or at least I hope
not. Relying on closed binaries or non-GPLv3-licensed source to
preserve a unified source base would seem to be a little risky, if not
downright foolish.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
