| 1 |
On 5/27/07, Isidore Ducasse <ducasse.isidore@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> le Sun, 27 May 2007 23:32:49 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> a écrit: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Not necessarily (or likely) /all/ their software, but significant parts |
| 6 |
> > of it. OpenSolaris is currently CDDL, which /is/ OSI approved as a real |
| 7 |
> > "open" license, but was designed in part deliberately to be GPLv2 |
| 8 |
> > incompatible. Apparently, they weren't interested in Linux "stealing" |
| 9 |
> > their technologies, which they thought would happen if they made it GPLv2 |
| 10 |
> > compatible. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Solaris' dev team had diverging points of view about GPL being relevant for a private firm as Sun. Now it looks like there was room for a single conception over there. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > They ARE considering dual-licensing Solaris under GPLv3, however, which |
| 15 |
> > they've been working closely with the FSF on. Of course that's not a |
| 16 |
> > given until it's out, but it'd definitely widen the interest base (I for |
| 17 |
> > one may well be interested, especially if Linux stays GPLv2 only). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> You mean the bare kernel, right? Solaris' kernel could be an alternative to linux? Is the latter really different from the *BSD's? I've installed a NetBSD on my machine "for fun" recently (tho I switched back to using my good'ol gentoo, can't get used to anything else now. pkgsrc looks like a sympathetic old auntie); it appears to practice monolithic kernel. What would be different in running a GPLv3 kernel? I've read about the anti-DRM part of it; is there some other reason you/we could be interested in it? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> BTW isn't there a technical issue licensing a single version of a soft against two incompatible licenses? Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2 and GPLv3? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > Of course Linus and the other kernel devs were originally very much |
| 24 |
> > against early GPLv3 drafts. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Is it a matter of diverging positions towards industrial partners/users? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > The Gentoo Java devs are working on it, but as I said, I don't |
| 29 |
> > believe enough of the entire Java infrastructure has been released as GPL |
| 30 |
> > yet to do the entire thing as sources. Even after it has, it'll take |
| 31 |
> > several months as experimental ebuilds in the Java overlay (emerge layman |
| 32 |
> > and read up on using it, if interested) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Ok! Does anyone know the difference between the java-overlay and the java-gcj-overlay? |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The thing I've wondered about GPL'ing java, is when do we finally get |
| 39 |
a native 64 bit browser plugin? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Wil |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives