On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Mario Goebbels wrote:

>> The only thing I would have done different given the limited resources in
>> engineering, would have been to license under the BSD 3 clause so that
>> anyone, any system, could have taken the code to incorporate into their
>> system, even Linux. It seems that will happen if Sun does GPL2 and/or GPL3
>> the OpenSolaris sources, and I don't know if they will do that, just that
>> they have mentioned that in the press.
>
> I don't think that going GPL is the right thing to do right now. The
> OpenSolaris project should first gather some momentum before
> reconsidering to release the bits to the lion and then just go under.
>
> See my other thread ("Okay guys, let's take our balls, give up and go
> home!") for why.
>
> -mg
>
>

If the text of the GPL was actually read, those concerned would understand
that Linux could have ZFS and DTrace now, along with any other piece of 
code licensed under the CDDL. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be 
possible, given the majority of people that work with GPL'd license code
seem to be set upon making the imagined 'linking clause' reality when, in 
fact, the text of the GPL contains no instances of the word 'link'. It 
seems to be the case the real GPL is the FSF FAQ. Some might go as far to 
say the 'the program' and 'derivative work' referred to in the GPL 
encompass linking; however, this is an ambiguity, and any lawyer worth the 
air he or she breathes to sufficiently dispute this in court, I think.

>From my research, a ZFS or DTrace Linux port would only require the 
sources be distributed separately. Binaries could still be shipped with a 
Linux distribution, as the GPL is strictly a source-level license if one 
assumes the imaginary 'linking clause' is, in fact, imaginary.

With this said, I fail to see how adopting a license that contains such 
ambiguities could be beneficial towards OpenSolaris.

Derek E. Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://delewis.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to