Hi all, Personally I don't see how a GPL'd OpenSolaris would do any better than current CDDL, not to mention possibility for various linux distribution to gain free and instant access to codes like dtrace and zfs.
Two years ago, going GPL might help Solaris then to pick up drivers written for linux (and I need to add that the quality of community drivers varies from project to project.) Now OpenSolaris runs on popular hardware like nvidia and intel chipset, the driver gap is being closed, as long as the momentum can be maintained. Furthermore, for userland stuff, OpenSolaris got its own C libraries, and does not need GNU libc at all, and for other opensource userspace projects, CDDL shares the same footing with GPL, if I understand correctly. In the kernel, now there isn't many empty holes waiting to be filled with GPL'd implementation. So what's the point to license with GPL at all? To be practical, GPL automatically attracts developers? The developers who really care and decide what platform they use base upon licenses are only those talented, morale driven ones working on kernel, rather than the rest majority, rather than those working in userspace projects, not even mention developers working on commercial products. Also, BSD license is more generous than GPL regarding to flexibility of commercializing a licensed component, and it is still a public and free (as in freedom) license like GPL. Does that automatically make *BSD more popular? does that automatically make any BSD licensed project more(or equally) successful than GPL'd ones? I have to say, compared to *BSD, opensolaris w/ CDDL is no less vibrant. I don't have any power over what license Sun will distribute future OpenSolaris with, but to anyone who has a say on the matter, I hope they all give a real serious think before deciding to go with GPL. Cheers, Ivan. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
