I am really glad that you both bring this issue up.  I frankly
would rather that there be no license at all.  After all there is
nothing new under the Sun in the Zone Manager.  Its just a script that
I hope helps make zones management much easier.  However I can't open
source the Zone Manager through the Open Source process without
specifying a license. The Zone Manager was Open Sourced with GPLv2 
even though version 1.7 had CDDL.  I am open to either way but
if I switch from GPLv2 to CDDL I will have to start the OS process
all over again which I really don't want to do.


On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 16:02 +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >> To mitigate barriers to adoption.
> > 
> > 
> > Which barriers to adoption?
> > 
> > You've also erected a new barrier to adoption (for those who prefer
> > CDDL over GPLv2 and find GPLv2 too restrictive)
> I also completely fail to understand how a GPLv2 zone manager tool built 
> on top of the CDDL licensed (for the source) zone tools in Solaris 
> actually helps.
> What I do see is that there is now a new barrier. There is now this tool 
> under the GPLv2 and the original zones tools under a difference license 
> than the tools it uses to do its job.  I don't see how this actually 
> helps anyone.
> I also think that a change of license of anything hosted on 
> opensolaris.org should be discussed on an appropriate opensolaris.org 
> alias BEFORE a change like this is announced as having happened.
> Given that the zonemgr project has zones-discuss@opensolaris.org as its 
> discussion alias I would have expected to see at least discussion there. 
>   I've check the mail archives and see no mention of a licensing 
> discussion involving the GPL and zonemgr.  As a common courtesy never 
> mind the possible legal implications of this.

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to