> On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final > license. At this point, I'm not particularly > interested. > > > > > > I see little benefit to our community and the > potential for other communities to succeed at the > expense of ours. > > > > > > The problem I see with dual licensing is a > situation where we end up with sub-communities that > are based on the license they choose to work with; > where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community > but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and > vice versa. > > > > > I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the > only way it could > > work would be for all CDDL code to be > dual-licensed. If you allowed > > just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, > then you could easily > > find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and > then ending up with a > > combination that wouldn't work. It's not > practical. > > > mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position > to solve it too > since developers contributing code have to sign an > agreement. I still > think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real > benefit. > > nacho > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org >
I sincerely doubt many people would consider Mozilla to have "solved it." I would venture to guess that most would agree that the triple-licensing for Mozilla has only resulted in headaches and not benefits. I certainly don't consider a triple or dual-license a solution. To me, a dual or triple license is simply an admission that the community couldn't come to agreement or didn't pick the right license to begin with. You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but if you can make most people happy... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
