"W. Wayne Liauh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CDDL (or more specifically, a code licensed under the CDDL) can be considered
> as consisting of two portions: the GPL portion and the proprietary portion.
> If enough manpower (gender neutral) can be mustered to eliminate the need for
> the proprietary code, then Sun can easily re-license OpenSolaris under GPL.
Do you really believe that the CDDL includes a proprietary portion?
If so, please read the CDDL and try to understand it.
Sun cannot use the GPL for OpenSalaris because the GPL does not
allow to link OSS code with CS code.
> But doing that would also defeat what I believe as perhaps the best advantage
> of CDDL, in that it allows hardware manufacturers to have their proprietary
> driver included in the kernel. So far, unfortunately, I am not sensing any
> action to educate hardware makers of this advantage.
As long as there are no ports for typical embedded processors, there is
no need to advertize this feature.
> Many embedded device makers in Taiwan (though many of their products are made
> in China) treat the GPL'd Linux as if they were under BSD, or at best, under
> CDDL (i.e, keeping at least some code proprietary). Since many of these
> products are sold in the US, this is a time bomb waiting to be exploded.
> OTOH, does anyone really believe that the terms of GPL can be enforced in
> China--the next biggest market for all IP products?
These majority of these products are not sold mainly in China but e.g. in
Germany. It really helps to go to the court and to forbid to sell the
hardware in Germany.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
