>I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking
>ourselves what we think about GPLv3.  What would it
>mean to the community if we dual-licensed?  It's now a
>possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
>to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code.
>This could open up a world of possibilities.

What benefit would it bring?

Code can't be shared FROM linux with a dual license or an
exception - or indeed GPLv3.

There might be a benefit from making the base libc dual
licensed so that the fun and games associated with the
Nexenta distribution are not repeated, but I don't see
what extra body of code will become available to OpenSolaris
in terms of device drivers that it needs or anything else
like that.

I'd really rather Solaris DIDN'T become controlled by the
'community'.  We have Linux, and *BSD with community
driven development and they both have problem fixing the
final wrinkles that are not sexy or interesting - but which
customers (rather than developers) ARE interested in.
I'm fairly sure we're capable of differentiating between
cases where ALL the source is open for scrutiny and security
audit (eg edge servers) and cases where we want the maximum
out of the hardware - particularly with workstations.

Solaris can be different primarily by being controlled by
a company which can have customer focus and engineering
clout and project management process to back up delivery.
Sure, contributions that scratch itches can be accepted, but
at the end of teh day we need a system with strong binary
interfaces that is friendly to binary vendors, be it network
or graphic or RAID drivers - and by doing so Solaris can be
more customer focussed and distance itself from all the
usual bullshit.

I really do want an alternative to Windows and MacOS/X.  I
don't need A.N.Other free-as-in-freedom OS.

And ideally I'd like Sun to tune and sell hardware that flies
with Solaris, and a second vendor (Novell would have been ideal,
too bad!) to provide a software only angle on white box and
Dell/HP etc.

James


_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Reply via email to