Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
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?
I dont see how that makes the situation any different, they could
still implement the closed source parts and release them using gplv3
only if we dual license. Same outcome
That's true as well. I think Simon is saying that he feels that having
to reimplement the non-GPLv3 parts of Solaris would prevent a sufficient
barrier to an incompatible fork. I'm not sure that's true now, and I'm
pretty sure it won't be a barrier at all at some point in the future.
As I've said before, I haven't fully made up my mind if GPLv3 is a good
or a bad thing - and as GPLv3 doesn't actually exist yet, I don't think
anyone can make a definitive statement. However I'm pretty convinced
that dual licensing of any sort is not the right course to take,
irrespective of the licenses involved.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
