Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Also, there will be an enormous amount of
software under v3 when it's done, so wouldn't that benefit us? Don't we
want to grow faster?
It would enable that software to benefit from us, but not us to benefit
from them, since any software we take in from another GPLv3 project will
be GPLv3-only and unavailable to anyone who wishes to use the CDDL option.
Since the CDDL allows OpenSolaris distros to exist with our current model
of mostly source but some still encumbered binaries, while the GPL would
not, that would simply be cutting off our distros, which would slow growth,
not speed it.
failed to understand you here...
a) in case of dual-licensing model, distros will have full rights to
choose under which license to progress. If they choose GPLv3, its their
choice;
Right - as long as all code was dual licensed - the implication of Jim's
statement was that dual-licensing our sources would allow us to benefit
from other GPLv3 code, but if we did pull that in, it would be GPLv3-only
and not dual licensed, and distros would have no choice on using it.
b) needed encumbered binaries should be considered as separate modules
and still distro-builders will have full rights to re-distribute them.
Will GPLv3 allow you to ship libc.so with most sources under GPL but
the i18n components closed source? I certainly didn't think GPLv2
would.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
