On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, S Destika wrote:
Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other
changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff
gets merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux
development works at all.
"eventually all acceptable stuff gets merged [ ...]"...
Do you really believe what you write there ?
If so, then you need to explain "acceptable", and explain in what sense
"acceptable" on Linux is easier to achieve for big project foldbacks /
commercially-motivated development than you claim it is on Solaris ...
But more importantly this was never about accepting any and all changes
- it was about making it better for people to propose changes and people
to review it and then accept the quality ones. >
The review/integration process on Linux can be as tedious as on Solaris,
and worse. Projects as:
- ReiserFS4
- Linux support for the ToUCam webcam family
- MadWIFI / the Atheros driver
- Xen
- lkcd
have been at the 'bad end' of "can it be integrated" "why can it not be
integrated" "it needs to change to integrate" set of arguments, sometimes
for years. There are bone-headed discussions about code quality, [ bad ]
code reuse, licensing issues, GPL enforcement/enforcibility.
Just as we have on OpenSolaris. In that sense, this sort-of-flamewar has
just shown we've already caught up.
As far as the 0.02c goes:
Until I can freely exchange, both ways, code between the Solaris and Linux
kernels, without having to worry or even know about licensing particulars,
the "interoperability" issue between the two isn't solved. This isn't a
one-way road. If I want to port Linux driver code to Solaris, I can only
do so if the license on the Linux sources allows me to integrate them into
a Solaris source assembly of whatever sort. If I want to port ZFS to Linux
I can only do so if the Solaris source license allows me to integrate the
result into a Linux source assembly of sorts.
Now if you can explain in which way the GPLv3 allows for this sort of
two-way free exchange of sourcecode, I'd be happy to hear and more than
happy to give a +1 for such a change. But does it really ?
If a license change / dual licensing to GPLv3 doesn't achieve a path for
two-way exchange of code, Solaris has nothing to gain from it, and Linux
has nothing to gain from it. It'd be a marketing spin.
Or what ?
FrankH.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
