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:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 firstname.lastname@example.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