> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure > if we dual license > - the potential for one license to be ripped off and > the source forked > *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important > bit), the inability > to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion > that dual-licensing > will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception" > anyway?). > > If Sun really wants to go GPLv3 with OpenSolaris, I > think they should > just switch license entirely and ditch the CDDL. I > really don't think > dual licensing is a good idea. And I don't see that > switching to GPLv3 > will fix the many issues we *should* be expending > energy on. > > To me, the interesting and helpful bits of this long, > long discussion > have been about what we need to do as a community to > to attract more > members, and what we need to do to make life easier > for the members we > already have. As far as I'm concerned the licensing > flamefest is really > an irrelevant and unnecessary distraction.
+1 -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
