| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisRecommendation: no GPLv3 for SolarisPosted Feb 12, 2007 14:09 UTC (Mon) by scherbis (guest, #4434)Parent article: Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris
If you would have read the document at the end of the link, you would have realized that it is the OpenSolaris developers that made the recomendation. It is not Sun, it is the OpenSolaris community. I find it suprising that their views would be dismissed so easily, since they are the ones contributing code under the CDDL. You also have to remember that the CDDL is an open source license, and code from OpenSolaris has made its way to BSD and Apple, specifically DTrace. I tend to agree with them, it makes no sense to move to the GPL for the OpenSolaris code.
(Log in to post comments)
Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris Posted Feb 12, 2007 15:47 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] It's *some* of the OpenSolaris developers, about half a dozen of then. The discussion atthe link is partly about the question of exactly who "the OpenSolaris Community" includes. There are apparently some 800 people on the OpenSolaris mailing list, so it's arguable how representative those half-dozen developers are. As someone mentioned above in comparison to Java, the current contributors are exactly the ones you'd expect not to have a problem with the current licensing, while a change of license could potentially (or not) attract many other contributors who don't like the current licensing. Also, as I understand it (though I could be wrong), the discussion is about whether to dual-license OpenSolaris with CDDL and GPLv3, not whether to switch entirely to GPLv3. That's an important distinction.
|
|
||||||||||||