michael wolfe wrote:
it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it is GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want their software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off by opensolaris.
I cannot agree with this statement. There are a lot of opensource projects that are based on non-GPL licenses that seem to be doing quite well. A lot of the *BSD releases are under one of the Berkeley variant license. My personal opinion is that most developers want opensource and the exact license used is not that important. (Personally I tend to like the Berkeley style license best.)
And after reading more about the different licenses (thanks Andy Rucker for posting the URL to the Open Source Licensing book), it seems to me that the GPL is the one with more, not less restrictions than the other opensource licenses. I understand and respect the original reasons for the GPL (to prevent opensource software being turned into closed source products), but it seems to me that the GPL is the license that is causing difficulties as far as license compatibility. Plus, the fact that the OpenSolaris kernel can support proprietary drivers makes it more attractive to me (and likely to other commercial developers).
-- James Lick -- 黎建溥 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://jameslick.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
