> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for
> BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL
> since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
>
> regards
> Dev Mazumdar
Hello;
I suggested the CDDL for the BSDs too so I won't hide I like this decision very
much. Thank you!
That said, I wanted to clarify this: while FreeBSD and NetBSD *can* include
CDDL code, it's not sure they will. In the past the *BSD version of OSS was
released under a BSD license and the linux version was released under the GPL.
FreeBSD still carries the BSD-licensed version and a Google SoC project updated
the API wrt the 4.0 version. I think FreeBSD will keep the BSD version in the
tree and will move slowly to the new OSS version depending on it's merits. Why
slowly? they have done a pretty good job recently to keep many drivers (notably
HDA) working and there's no need to replace it soon.
I probably shouldn't ask this: but perhaps the Artistic license would be as
near as OSS could go to make the code as free as possible, still keeping some
control over it? I suspect it would be more acceptable for the BSDs, except of
course for OpenBSD that still expects that the world to adapt to their own
little world, and won't accept the artistic license either, but maybe it's a
further incentive for the other BSDs. I don't know... just a wild guess.
Another option would be to make have the code become BSDL after a period of
time (2010?). That has been an incentive for other code that has made it into
the base system like vinum and the softupdates code.
I do hate licensing issues and I will get with whatever works for most people
;-).
Thanks again for making OSS opensource!
Pedro.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
