
Thread beginning with comment 260910
To view parent comment, click here.
Member since:

I agree with your points except this one:
>>Putting code into the public domain has a poor track record in terms of building communities and long term support.<<

Uh, I wouldn't consider all the BSD OS, X Windows, Apache, a 'poor track record' sure Linux is even more successful but still that doesn't make those project unsuccessful..

Unless you consider 'gift' licenses (BSDv2, MIT, Apache) and 'public domain' different?
For all pratical purpose, there is no difference as those 'gift' licenses have basically no restriction.

About CDDL filling Sun business need: yes, and one of the big business need is to be incompatible with the Linux kernel.
I have no problem with this, I just wish that Sun would stop saying that Linux developers should port their CDDL code and acting surprised when Linux developers don't: that's also dishonest!

Reply Parent Score: 4

zztaz Member since:

Releasing software under ANY license differs from placing it in the public domain. You surrender ownership when you place your work in the public domain. With the BSD license, you keep the copyright but grant broad permissions to people who don't hold the copyright. I use the BSD license as an example, but the effects are similar across a range of licenses.

BSD might seem as permissive as public domain, but there is an essential difference: a copyright notice indicating who owns the rights. It's hard to build a community if you don't know who the founding members are.

BSD, X, Apache and other projects are successful because they impose at least some terms, however minimal, on distribution. That was the point I was trying to make. They are also successful because the projects have a formal organization with rules regarding membership, who can commit code changes, and mechanisms for resolving disputes. Projects often fail when they neglect to define rules.

DTrace and Linux follow different rules. I don't care how many developers tell me not to worry about how those rules may or may not conflict. It's not a technical issue. Show me a professional legal opinion that CDDL code and GPL code may be combined and distributed by third parties, and I'll stop worrying.

'Open' is not a synonym for 'anarchy'. 'Open' does not mean 'no rules', it means that the rules are published and apply equally to all. I respect the GPL and CDDL, among other licenses. I don't speak for Linux or Sun, nor am I a lawyer, so my identity doesn't matter. But I have a question for the 'just do it' crowd:

Which license do you want me to violate? Either, or both?

Reply Parent Score: 1

John Nilsson Member since:

So you are saying that without the copyright regime there would no way of knowing who created what software, and as a result there would be no way to build communities around software projectes?

Do yuo have anything to back that up?

Reply Parent Score: 2