| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 12, 2007 10:55 UTC (Mon) by jmansion (guest, #36515)In reply to: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris by robert_s Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
>They would be the people who were, you know, porting drivers and ideas to and fro from linux
That won't and can't happen even with a modified GPL3 license (as well as CDDL, let's remember that).
Its a question of who matters: Sun have lots of paying customers who pay to matter, and get what they need. If they need binary kernel modules, then that's fine for them. They pay for - and get - stability for themselves and for ISVs. And the pay Sun to exercie its judgement and *control* to achieve that.
Linux is quite different for users and ISVs - and the antipathy towards binary module ISVs (and binary application vendors too from some quarters) means that Solaris *is* differentiated and can continue to be differentiated. Developers are just a minority, and they need to remain that way - and to be an unimportant minority in the overall picture.
I'm quite happy to have a choice between the Solaris model and the Linux model and sometimes I'll favour one or the other, depending on circumstance. I don't want the choice to be threatened though.
James
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||