On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Gueven Bay wrote:
And OpenSolaris will not get "uptake" until you - the OpenSolaris community -
made it _crystal clear_ to _normal_ people - not to lawyers in companies - that the CDDL
is not a license with which SUN wants to $profit$ .
The free software community doesn't like the CDDL and with it OpenSolaris.
You can scream. You can rage. But that is a fact.
The people think:
" Hmm, The GPL was written long ago. All this free SW is there and will
be free forever.
Will it be ?
If you're getting into license fasicm, you end up with projects like this:
http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/
or, more recently, comments about corporate code contributions like this:
http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/license.html
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0608.1/1018.html
which will sooner or later turn into flamewars again ...
The driver situation under Linux hasn't improved in the last few years
anymore, and that's due to GPL extremists. Wrt. to that, some of the Linux
developers are fighting a holy war, actively ignoring the needs of the
users...
'nuff' said. I'm shutting up about this. Just ask yourself why for example
the BSD projects are not using the GPL. If you want the software that you
write to be free, to be usable by everyone, and don't insist on everyone
using it to adopt all your religious dogmas, you'll make a very conscious
choice against the GPL.
Linux gets the publicity. But there's a huge amount of opensource code out
there, for Windows, for BSD, for scientific purposes - none of that is
usually being pulled into the spotlight. Never seen a presentation on e.g.
the history and importance of the LAPACK code during a LinuxDay. Never
seen one on the possibilities of exchanging code with the BSD projects.
Never saw one about what to observe when writing GPL'ed software for
Windows. All these things are thriving, in their own way. If you cannot
live with a wallflower role for a while, don't start a new project ...
Btw, the GPL "LICENSE.TXT", back in the early 1990s, used to have a
political addendum "why not to use Apple" (explaining why gcc wasn't
ported to MacOS). Anyone remembers that one ?
GPL never was a license only, it was always an instrument of a political
agenda. If you agree with that, or if you're just too dumb a member of the
voting flock to care about such matters, it's all fine and nice. But we're
not living in a one-party state, thanks god/fate/destiny/chance.
Yes, I'm sad that I can't take some code from Linux and put it into
OpenSolaris. It'd make my life a lot easier in some places. But I just
have to accept that, not only because I work for Sun, but rather because
the Linux license forbids me doing it. The GPL is extremely restrictive -
you're against us unless you're with us. The "free as in freedom"
discussion is sophism, and missing the point. The GPL isn't there to
protect the interests of users, but to allow the developer ultimate
control about the code. Yes - control, not freedom.
Btw, yes, I have contributed GPL code.
Sometimes, having that kind of control is a very nice thing :)
FrankH.
==========================================================================
No good can come from selling your freedom, not for all gold of the world,
for the value of this heavenly gift exceeds that of any fortune on earth.
==========================================================================
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
