Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jan 2006 17:14 UTC, submitted by d3vi1
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris In a weblog entry, Sun's President Jonathan Schwartz has announced that Sun is looking into applying a dual-license scheme to OpenSolaris-- CDDL and GPL3. "We recognize that diversity and choice are important - which is why we've begun looking at the possibility of releasing Solaris (and potentially the entire Solaris Enterprise System), under dual open source licenses. CDDL (which allows customer IP to safely comingle with Solaris source code) and under the Free Software Foundation's GPL3."
Order by: Score:
v ok
by Duffman on Sat 28th Jan 2006 17:41 UTC
RE: ok
by somebody on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "ok"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

If opensolaris is released under GPLv3, how linux zealots will be able to troll ?

As one of often accused being linux zealot I can answer you.

Some extremists will bash over one company having control over it.
Some more realistic ones will start using Solaris when it suits their needs better than Linux.

Reply Score: 2

v It would be a mistake
by stephanem on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:10 UTC
RE: It would be a mistake
by somebody on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:44 UTC in reply to "It would be a mistake"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

even Linus has more brains not accepting V3.

Ok, shit-for-brains. Question for you:

How would you arrange moving to v3 in Linux case?

Linux staying on v2 has nothing to do with v2 being better than v3 or around.

Have in mind these points
1. Linus can't decide the move on GPL3. Every single contributor has to consent with moving on it
2. How will they find all those people?
3. What if someone died or can't be found? Throw his contribution out for the sole reason of moving to v3?
4. Where will you find enough man power to start project this size?
5. Should they stop working on kernel until this issue is resolved?

Edited 2006-01-28 23:45

Reply Score: 3

RE: It would be a mistake
by Sphinx on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "It would be a mistake"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Apple and MS are going to mint money hand over fist on their closed source OSs.

You say that like they have never reamed a closed system buying public who thinks they're doing them a favor and made a train load of money doing it before.

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Mitarai on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:18 UTC
RE: ...
by DevL on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:36 UTC in reply to "..."
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

How could it possibly be a filaure when it isn't out yet? The first draft of a license isn't the final version of it!

Reply Score: 2

LOL!!!
by Temcat on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:23 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

Looks like Schwartz tries hard to ensure that nothing from Solaris is ported to Linux. After all, he announced tthat only after making sure that Linus won't license Linux under GPL3 :-)

On the other hand, I may be mistaken - if GPL3 code is legally allowed to enter GPL2 kernel. Not sure about that. Any hints?

Reply Score: 4

RE: LOL!!!
by CrLf on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:30 UTC in reply to "LOL!!!"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"On the other hand, I may be mistaken - if GPL3 code is legally allowed to enter GPL2 kernel."

The kernel isn't GPLv2, some parts of it are. Anyway, nothing prevents GPLv3 code from entering a GPLv2 project, nor the other way around.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: LOL!!!
by _LH_ on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL!!!"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

>The kernel isn't GPLv2, some parts of it are. Anyway, nothing prevents GPLv3 code from entering a GPLv2 project, nor the other way around.

I wouldn't bet on that. The whole concept of copyleft is forcing the whole project to use the license if they use any code licensed under GPL. And I honestly don't know whether GPL3's DRM and patent clauses are in line with version 2. So the only thing keeping most projects compatible with version 3 is the clause "version 2.x or newer".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: LOL!!!
by CrLf on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL!!!"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

I wouldn't bet on that. The whole concept of copyleft is forcing the whole project to use the license if they use any code licensed under GPL. And I honestly don't know whether GPL3's DRM and patent clauses are in line with version 2. So the only thing keeping most projects compatible with version 3 is the clause "version 2.x or newer".

Well, you may be right. But I think the patent and DRM clauses may be compatible up to a certain point.

If the Linux kernel has no DRM whatsoever, then it may be possible to link GPL3 code with the kernel (which has some GPL2 sections). That changes if the kernel gets any DRM functionality, in which case the GPL3 sections must be removed.

As for the patents, I'm not sure it becomes incompatible in any situation, for patent claims over non-GPL3 sections of the code.

I think the FSF should make some clarifications about these matters before the final GPLv3 is released.

Sun says they *may* use GPLv3 because they aren't sure either and don't want to allow the possibility of Linux sucking the life out of Solaris (which it has already been doing for years, even without picking up any code from OpenSolaris).

PS: GPLv3 adds to the FOSS-licensing confusion, and is way too politicized. I don't like it, and I see no reason to move beyond the GPLv2, but that's another matter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: LOL!!!
by JMcCarthy on Sun 29th Jan 2006 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL!!!"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

"clause "version 2.x or newer"

that's not an actual clause of the license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: LOL!!!
by binarycrusader on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL!!!"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

The kernel isn't GPLv2, some parts of it are. Anyway, nothing prevents GPLv3 code from entering a GPLv2 project, nor the other way around.

Do you have an official FSF statement to back that claim up? Not to be adversarial.

Lastly, you forget that it may depend on how the project applies the license to their code. For example, if they say it is licensed under "version 3 of the GPL or later" it may restrict its usage. In addition, since the GPL 3 license isn't finalized yet we don't know yet exactly what licenses will be compatible with what or how. So until that point I think it unwise for anyone to claim that such and such conditions will be true.

Reply Score: 3

RE: LOL!!!
by CaptainPinko on Sun 29th Jan 2006 04:16 UTC in reply to "LOL!!!"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

Looks like Schwartz tries hard to ensure that nothing from Solaris is ported to Linux.

What's wrong with that? I think we need diversity and I'd hate to see Solaris and Linux merge into some grotesque chimera. Diversity means innovation as each project explores new things in a unique way.

Whatever you do don't relicence Solaris into a Linux compatible license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: LOL!!!
by Temcat on Sun 29th Jan 2006 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL!!!"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

What's wrong with that? I think we need diversity and I'd hate to see Solaris and Linux merge into some grotesque chimera. Diversity means innovation as each project explores new things in a unique way.

1) There's nothing wrong with that. It's they software, after all, and they are free to license it however they please.

2) I don't see Solaris and Linux merging even if Solaris is released under a Linux-compatible license. I do see some interesting and useful possibilities of cross-pollination though - and this encourages diversity through the appearance of hybrids.

Reply Score: 1

happy to hear that from sun :)
by kajaman on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:28 UTC
kajaman
Member since:
2006-01-06

Happy to hear that they see advantages of GPL v3 ;) . I don't understand why people call it "the biggest failure of 2006" ;) it is still under development (currently public consultations - if you don't like something about gpl v3 don't call it a "failure" - publish your comments at fsf's site).

Reply Score: 4

RE: happy to hear that from sun :)
by stephanem on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "happy to hear that from sun :)"
stephanem Member since:
2006-01-11

And you think RMS is going to listen to you because.....

Reply Score: 1

Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

...you may have a point after all.

Reply Score: 1

pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

stephanem:
>And you think RMS is going to listen to you because.....

... you have good arguments.

(or haven't you good arguments and you just want to troll on a board like osnews?)

Reply Score: 1

Very clever...
by porcel on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:28 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Very smart move. This will increase the likelihood that we look at Solaris again one day, particularly if Opensolaris is combined with a debian architecture as some of the solaris distributions appear to be going.

While I short year ago, I gave SUN no hope of ever making it back, they now appear to be getting some clues.

My confidence isn't fully restored as I will believe this when it actually happens, but I see it with very good eyes.

Reply Score: 2

Sun and the competition
by Dark_Knight on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:41 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

It appears Sun is now seeing where the market is heading and are attempting to meet the needs of their customers in several key areas which is good. I do hope this works for them. After all with more competition the result for consumers is lower TCO and a better OS.

Edited 2006-01-28 18:42

Reply Score: 1

Sun's master move.
by sergio on Sat 28th Jan 2006 18:43 UTC
sergio
Member since:
2005-07-06

GNU/OpenSolaris is the way to go.

Reply Score: 0

yep
by gplCop318 on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:18 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

If opensolaris is v3 and linux isnt then opensolaris will be my new OS!

Reply Score: 1

RE: yep
by somebody on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "yep"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

If opensolaris is v3 and linux isnt then opensolaris will be my new OS!

That sounds stupid. GPL(2 or 3) doesn't matter. But it matters CDDL or GPL. Imagine how many kernel contributors there are in this world. Asking to consent with move on GPL3 every one of them would probably be impossible (yes, every and each one contributor would have to consent with move on GPL3 if they would want to change license. This is why some of us already knew kernel will stay GPL2 before Linus said anything). GPL2 does not exclude GPL3 additions. So where is the problem?

In my case if Sun does make this move. They at least got my attention to look at Solaris again. Since their major problem (cost) doesn't pose problem anymore, I have to admit I was tempted, but I just didn't want to agree with CDDL.

If someone would ask me why Solaris over Linux, I realy don't know the answer. But I know that every OS has its quirks and its good sides. Good side I see with Sun Solaris is possible vendors like Adobe or HW vendors support. They can't have the control over Linux which is community project, but they can for sure have at least agreement with Sun about how and when changes are introduced. Meaning for customers relying on closed and proprietary products, Sun would be much greater choice, for people seeking freedom? I /*for my personal use*/ would probably stick with Linux, but if and when Solaris would be licensed under GPL this probably wouldn't matter anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Hope it's true
by thebluesgnr on Sat 28th Jan 2006 19:53 UTC
thebluesgnr
Member since:
2005-11-14

That would be a great win for the Free software community.

Reply Score: 1

Progress
by bullethead on Sat 28th Jan 2006 20:58 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

This post goes far into the future. If Sun wants a future CEO for the company, Schwartz looks like he will be it. I see trillions of dollars of growth from this if it comes into being. Not to mention OpenSolaris will then become a base operating system for civilization when humans start to colonize other planets.

Reply Score: 1

FYI, for further reading...
by eric boutilier on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:30 UTC
eric boutilier
Member since:
2005-12-14

FWIW, here are some links to recent blog posts (mostly by analysts) about the GPLv3 (and some mention Sun too). Note: these were written before Jonathan's post however.

(IOW, Earlier today I had spent an hour or so gathering these for my blog, so I thought I'd share them here as well.)

- Steve O'Grady's Tecosystems:
http://www.redmonk.com/sogrady/archives/001232.html
http://www.redmonk.com/sogrady/archives/001238.html

- Berlind and Farber's Between the Lines:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2479
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2486

- Simon Phipp's SunMink:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=spreading_gpl_across...

- Danese Cooper's New Diva Blog:
http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2006/01/notes_from_gplv.html

- Dana Blankenhorn's Open Source:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=554

Reply Score: 4

Well...
by archiesteel on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:38 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

...this certainly raises more questions than it answers. There seemed to be a general consensus that Sun introduced the CDDL because they didn't like the GPL, but I guess this tends to indicate that they simply wanted a more diverse license portfolio.

I'm personally all for it. The more licenses available, the greater the choice for developers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Well...
by CrLf on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:46 UTC in reply to "Well..."
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

"The more licenses available, the greater the choice for developers."

I'm afraid that, the more licenses available, the more confusion, the more source ghettos are created because of license incompatibilities.

I like the GPL(v2), and how it protects the FOSS developers from code-predators, but I'm starting to understand what the BSD license advocates have been saying for years... (not necessarily agreeing with them, though, as I still think the GPL is what makes corporations unafraid to contribute back to the projects they use/sponsor).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Well...
by archiesteel on Sun 29th Jan 2006 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Well..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I disagree with the "confusion" part. It's not as if we're talking about kids with ADD here, but rather we're talking about developers who know their C from their C++ from their C#.

License incompatibilities is a bigger issue, but that's only if licenses are incompatible. Again, it's pretty simple to figure out for the developers.

It's not a matter of determining which is the best licence. Such a thing in fact does not exist. All licences have their use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Well...
by binarycrusader on Sat 28th Jan 2006 22:54 UTC in reply to "Well..."
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

...this certainly raises more questions than it answers. There seemed to be a general consensus that Sun introduced the CDDL because they didn't like the GPL, but I guess this tends to indicate that they simply wanted a more diverse license portfolio.

No, SUN introduced the CDDL because version 2 of the GPL did not meet their Customer and Business needs at the same time. GPL version 2 also lacked patent protection, grants, etc. and a few other things that the CDDL has.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well...
by archiesteel on Sun 29th Jan 2006 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Are you saying the GPLv3 has those things that Sun found lacking in version 2?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Well...
by binarycrusader on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well..."
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you saying the GPLv3 has those things that Sun found lacking in version 2?

Yes. If you look at several of the posts by SUN or OpenSolaris community members discussing the reasons behind the CDDL you'll see that patent licensing, retaliation, etc. were part of the major concerns about the GPL. However, the dual licensing is necessary because SUN customers want or need the ability to combine GPL-incompatible or private code with Solaris code. The CDDL gives them that capability. I honestly don't know much more than that though at this point until further disclosure comes from SUN.

Reply Score: 1

???? Sun => GPL ????
by somebody on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:05 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Ok, I'm always one of the first ones to bash over Schwartz and Sun (#include "McNeally"), but this is a pleasant surprise.

I was tempted to try OpenSolaris few times now, but CDDL was the only thing that made me turn my head around. This could be the final steping stone for OpenSolaris to get wide acceptance (including mine)

I know it was said they are in early stage of GPL adoption, but it raises quite a few questions:

1. Since GPL and CDDL are not compatible (ok, it's a one-way street only). Having some overlaying major parts licenced CDDL under GPL tree does not pose a problem. But, is it possible?
2. If main tree would be licensed under GPL, what would that mean for inclusion of some binary or patented drivers Sun still provides with CDDL version. Off course, if point 1 is feasible then this would probably pose no problem.
3. If point 1. is not possible, would that mean two versions of OpenSolaris?
4. How will Sun treat this? For example, they have signed contract with Oracle. Would that mean the same conditions for GPL adopters as for CDDL adopters and Sun Solaris customers? Meaning, something certified with RH is not certified with Fedora, although you usualy know it just works. How will Sun consider those diversities?
5. How will Sun treat GPL or CDDL only additions to their kernel? I suspect that not everybody will be prepared to contribute as dual licensed contribution. Not having the right solution here would mean 2 kernel forks. In my eyes, only dual licensed contributions would need to be accepted to preserve one tree.

Ok, I have to admit, this is geting interesting.

p.s. My first positive Sun post ever:)

Reply Score: 2

RE: ???? Sun => GPL ????
by binarycrusader on Sun 29th Jan 2006 07:01 UTC in reply to "???? Sun => GPL ????"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

5. How will Sun treat GPL or CDDL only additions to their kernel? I suspect that not everybody will be prepared to contribute as dual licensed contribution. Not having the right solution here would mean 2 kernel forks. In my eyes, only dual licensed contributions would need to be accepted to preserve one tree.

I suspect they won't allow them. Any contributions to the OpenSolaris project require joint copyright, just as the FSF does. This way, unlike projects such as the Linux kernel, the OpenSolaris community can as a whole decide on changes to licensing when necessary later or correct problems with existing licensing without seeking approval of every single contributor.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ???? Sun => GPL ????
by Karitku on Sun 29th Jan 2006 11:46 UTC in reply to "???? Sun => GPL ????"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

And not to mention problems causing GPL viral-effect. Sounds like huge mess and more like public sympathy fishing to me at moment. Sure they could release some unimportant parts in GPL but changing something inside kernel would probaply cause huge legal problems. Better go with one licence using either GPL or CDDL, dual licencing causes dual headaich.

Reply Score: 1

Simple Reason
by segedunum on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:16 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is basically because the CDDL is a useless license, and the vast majority of open source software cannot use CDDL licensed software which makes their software and OpenSolaris useless and used very, very little.

Many people could have told them that straight away, but maybe there's a glimmer of hope for Sun after all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Simple Reason
by Wes Felter on Sun 29th Jan 2006 05:37 UTC in reply to "Simple Reason"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

License compatibility isn't as important as some people make it out to be. In particular, license compatibility doesn't matter if you just want to use a piece of software. So for people who use OpenSolaris, the CDDL/GPL incompatibility is not an issue and thus CDDL is not "useless".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Simple Reason
by segedunum on Sun 29th Jan 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple Reason"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

License compatibility isn't as important as some people make it out to be.

Yes it is.

In particular, license compatibility doesn't matter if you just want to use a piece of software.

Wishful thinking. Software is only useful if it can be used by other parts of your system, and if your software can be used by a variety of open source projects whcih was the point of OpenSolaris.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Simple Reason
by binarycrusader on Sun 29th Jan 2006 07:16 UTC in reply to "Simple Reason"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

This is basically because the CDDL is a useless license, and the vast majority of open source software cannot use CDDL licensed software which makes their software and OpenSolaris useless and used very, very little.

"Vast Majority"? Pardon? You do realize that there are a significant number of projects out there that do not use the GPL and can in fact use CDDL code?

Maybe it's useless to you, but there are many of us that do find it useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Simple Reason
by segedunum on Sun 29th Jan 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple Reason"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that there are a significant number of projects out there that do not use the GPL and can in fact use CDDL code?

Not from what Jonathan Schwartz is saying, otherwise they wouldn't be contemplating it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Simple Reason
by binarycrusader on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Simple Reason"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Not from what Jonathan Schwartz is saying, otherwise they wouldn't be contemplating it.

That is interpretation at best. I see no explicit statements stating such.

Reply Score: 1

I don't think it will happen
by abraxas on Sat 28th Jan 2006 23:41 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

My personal opinion is that this is all talk. After bad mouthing Linux for so long and bad mouthing the GPL, and SUN's failure to even consider GPLing Java, I doubt it will ever happen. If it actually does happen it will interesting to see how it plays out but I'll believe it when I see it. I wasn't too optimistic about SUN open sourcing Solaris so I could be wrong on this one but I don't really see the benefit to SUN. There would eventually be two vastly different kernels with one that could not be incorporated back into proprietary Solaris.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't think it will happen
by glarepate on Sun 29th Jan 2006 21:08 UTC in reply to "I don't think it will happen"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

There would eventually be two vastly different kernels with one that could not be incorporated back into proprietary Solaris.

Will your worries go away if Solaris 11 is based on OpenSolaris? It may mean that new features won't be backported to Solaris 10 and earlier without writing all new code. But proprietary Solaris doesn't look to be a project with an indefinite development lifetime at this point.

Unless, of course, SUN change their mind again. But how likely is that? (d^;)

Reply Score: 1

crazy
by robertojdohnert on Sun 29th Jan 2006 04:49 UTC
robertojdohnert
Member since:
2005-07-12

I think Sun has lost their minds now. I have written a comment on it on my blog

http://rjdohnert.blogspot.com/2006/01/opensolaris-released-under-gp...

I think this an insane move by Sun and I think Schwartz needs to quit kissing the nuts of FSF.

Reply Score: 1

If Solaris is GPLv3'ed They can Kiss
by stephanem on Sun 29th Jan 2006 19:27 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

Nvidia grapics and Open Sound's drivers goodbye!

Reply Score: 1

binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

If Solaris is GPLv3'ed They can Kiss
By stephanem (1.00) on 2006-01-29 19:27:51 UTC
Nvidia grapics and Open Sound's drivers goodbye!


I don't see how you can say that since Schwartz mentioned that it would be dual licensed. I also fail to see how that would effect anything but OpenSolaris at most, since the commercial version of Solaris remains under different license terms. Please don't spread FUD.

Reply Score: 1

Dual License Questions:
by stephanem on Mon 30th Jan 2006 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE: If Solaris is GPLv3'ed They can Kiss"
stephanem Member since:
2006-01-11

Just because something is dual licensed, doesn't mean the licensor can take the GPL'ed contributions back into their "for pay" or "other License" product. If I contribute something to OpenSolaris under GPLv3, Sun cannot take that code back into Solaris that they sell or even license under CDDL.

I would like to get confirmation about dual licensing - if someone makes a patch under GPL, can the licensor take my patch for his for-profit product?. I wonder how JBoss, Trolltech, MySQL deal with patches to their GPL'ed product.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dual License Questions:
by pinky on Mon 30th Jan 2006 13:58 UTC in reply to "Dual License Questions:"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>Just because something is dual licensed, doesn't mean the licensor can take the GPL'ed contributions back into their "for pay" or "other License" product.

1. Yes, they can take it back into their "for pay" product.

2. They can only re-license it if the licenses are compatible.

But this are two complete different points.

>if someone makes a patch under GPL, can the licensor take my patch for his for-profit product?

again: yes!

> I wonder how JBoss, Trolltech, MySQL deal with patches to their GPL'ed product.

That's an other problem (point 2). They want to use the code under a non-compatible license too. Therefor they need the permission from the copyright holder.

Edited 2006-01-30 14:06

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dual License Questions:
by binarycrusader on Mon 30th Jan 2006 16:31 UTC in reply to "Dual License Questions:"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

If I contribute something to OpenSolaris under GPLv3, Sun cannot take that code back into Solaris that they sell or even license under CDDL.

You don't contribute to the OpenSolaris project under a specific license. All contributions to the OpenSolaris project are made under a contributor agreement that gives SUN and you joint copyright. Which means the license is irrelevant. All contributors to the OpenSolaris project must have a contributor agreement. The FSF requires this as well. So, you cannot contribute to the OpenSolaris project under a specific license.

Reply Score: 1