>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.
I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in. (Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation) >That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under >the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it. Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither license can be ripped off? We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such dual licensing would have a strong negative impact. (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses) Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
