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."
Permalink for comment 90470
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: LOL!!!
by CrLf on Sat 28th Jan 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL!!!"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3