Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2007 21:32 UTC, submitted by Oliver
"There's been a lot of talk on lists and blogs about an exchange between Linus Torvalds, Jonathan Schwartz and Theo de Raadt regarding licensing and documentation. It all started with a 'cynical' message from Linus about Sun's motivation with regard to Open Source. Jonathan Schwartz responded by extending Linus a dinner invitation. What? The romance was briefly interrupted by a message from Theo pointing out the doublespeak."
Thread beginning with comment 248803
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-13
What's the basis for that statement? There hasn't exactly been an outpouring of support from the kernel community to date for v3. On the contrary, the core developers (an inarguably important bloc) have taken a public unified stance against v3. Aside from that, contributing to openSolaris will require assigning copyright and permitting code use under CDDL as well as giving Sun leeway to license your code in the future as they see fit.
There always seems to be this mildly arrogant undertone from the FSF community that Linus is too obtuse to accept the "spirit" of the GPL, so they fail to accept that developers (and those commercial interests paying the developers' salaries) may be contributing specifically because of his attitude, not despite it.
I'm really not convinced that if Sun goes ahead and dual-licenses openSolaris under v3 that there will be any mass or even miniscule exodus from the linux kernel camp. A significant amount of linux developers are paid, and those that contribute voluntarily are just as likely to be attracted to the open nature of the development model as they are by the four freedoms. Even allowing that some developers may be contributing in the "spirit" of the four freedoms, I can't see them jumping at the opportunity to sign their code over to Sun with no guarantees that it will remain free and open.
If unwilling to submit patches/work upstream, then the alternative is that the v3 proponents wind up forking a v3-only openSolaris and keeping it unavailable to Sun or CDDL developers. I think that would potentially be more damaging and frankly, pointless, than the existing license clash.
Hell, I think the apparent inability of the linux kernel to shift licenses due to self-ownership of code underscores the strength and resilience of the license that Linus chose, and the reason he chose it. Some people will be drawn to that, as much as some will be drawn to v3 for philosophical reasons.