On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have to completely agree with Bill. > > You can't just GPL something (other than BSD and rare other exceptions), > and I'm 100% in agreement with Red Hat on keeping everything GPL. > > With that said, has anyone approached Sun about dual-licensing SMF? > If they are open to it, great. If not, then don't even bother looking at > it (let alone avoid the code!). > > [ Professional Side Note: > One of the reasons I have not done much Java other than required (largely > in the financial industry) is because of not only the license of it, but > most of the libraries -- even IBM's (which are no better). It's also the > reason I'm a huge fan of Mono's GPL/LGPL/BSD compiler/library/classlibs. ] Note that the CDDL (which is what Sun uses for Solaris code, presumably including SMF, when the OpenSolaris code finally is released) is not at all the same as the Sun Community Source License (the Sun Java license) The CDDL is basically like the Mozilla license. It's not compatible with the GPL in that you can't link code licensed GPL and code licensed CDDL together (due to the terms of the GPL), but other than that, its OSI-approved, free software, redistributable, etc. later, chris -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
