|
Replies:
2
-
Last Post:
Jan 31, 2007 12:34 PM
by: richlowe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:33 PM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:33 PM
in response to: Guest
|
|
>
>On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>> Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
>> better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
>
>+1
>
>contributor agreement's gotta go.
We can't have opensolaris without this; it's one reason Linux why
Linux and possibly other projects can't evolve its license; the FSF
requires it to. (That and 10 other legal reasons; not having it would
have only one advantage: we wouldn't be having this license discussion
as the license would be cast in stone for perpetuity.)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
769
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:34 PM
in response to: Guest
|
|
John Sonnenschein wrote:
>
> On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>> Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
>> better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
>
> +1
>
> contributor agreement's gotta go.
>
... I don't get this.
The FSF have such an agreement, as do various other projects. What's wrong
with ours? (which as I understand it, is actually nicer than most).
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
