You are the one denying the words of Danese while offering nothing whatsoever to support your claims.
Oh really? How about this: Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of
the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is
speaking this way because she lost an argument inside
Sun, not because her view is representative of the views
of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along
with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL
for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait
for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance
removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still
furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf,
which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS
movement.
S. (Simon Phipps)
From:http://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.opensol... If anything comes across as a 'fairy tale', it's the idea
that Sun would allow Linux to incorporate Sun's technical
advantages at a point where they were losing to Linux in
the marketplace.
As one of the first contributors to the OpenSolaris project who had many long and heart-felt discussions with various Solaris engineering and executives, I believe your assertions are flat out wrong. Jonathan Schwartz (CEO at the time) was fond of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats"http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/a-rising-t... Others have pointed out that this is demonstrably false as well. Have you also forgotten when Apple was considering integrating ZFS into OS X? Your argument also seems specious given that the only "OS" that had issues with integrating DTrace or other CDDL-licensed technology was Linux. Apple and many others have had no problem integrating it. So if Sun was really not willing to give up their competitive advantage, why would they give away technology under a license that was reasonable for almost every competitor? As others have also pointed out, not everyone believes that the CDDL and GPL are as incompatible as many would like to claim. It's just like the silliness you see in the Linux kernel today where some kernel symbols are marked with a special macro EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? http://lwn.net/Articles/154602/ If the GPL was strictly incompatible in all cases, then why is the extra silliness needed? |