Originally posted by: Nothinman
But why do you care? We already have free OSes under better licenses without some controlling corporate entity behind them, why would anyone want to take a step backwards and start pushing Solaris?
1. I like Solaris better than Linux.
2. It delivers excellent value as a development OS and production OS.
3. The CDDL lience is a very fair license.
4. I see Sun as the biggest contributer of OpenSolaris rather than a controller from your point of view.
But let me just say we have different standard or tolerance on usability, at least there's a difference between usable and enjoyable.
Yes, and for me Windows is just above tolerable and Linux is enjoyable.
That's fine, there're plenty of people in both camps.
Once pass the install/patching phase, XP is still much more useful than Ubuntu for me as a desktop, given all the nice applications that run on Windows, not even close.
Not true. Unless you're including all of your 3rd party apps in the 'install/patching phase' of Windows. And IMO most applications for Windows are far from nice, infact most are quite annoying.
Of course I am including all the 3rd party apps. Why shouldn't I?
We're talking about Windows the platform, not Microsoft the company, although Microsoft alone provides quite many applications, including all the development tools, office tools and media tools.
And who cares about 99% of the windows softwares that we do not use?
It's the best ones that matter, the winners of competitions got my money.
People do pay for the softwares they like, which is a healthy economy.
It hasn't been contested in court, but it's definitely true. You can't link a GPL'd program against a more restrictive license and distribute them together and the CDDL is more restrictive than the GPL. That type of conflict is the whole reason the LGPL was created.
Interesting, you keep saying CDDL is more restrictive.
Isn't LGPL used as a _less restrictive_ license than GPL so that projects can get along with other _more liberal_ licenses?
Sadly Sun and the Nextena people are taking the "ignore it and maybe it'll go away" approach.
That's bullshit.
First, Sun has nothing to do with Nexenta project, they don't "endorse" the project one way or the other, which is diffferent from Sun empolyees, as members of OpenSolaris community, praising the effort of Nexenta.
Then, if you haven't read Ian Murdock's thought on this matter (which is in the google page I gave to you), let me quote them here, because it's the pefect answer to your assertion on Nexenta:
From Ian's blog
In terms of the actual issue being discussed here, am I the only one who doesn?t get it? It seems to me the argument that linking a GPL application to a CDDL library and asserting that that somehow makes the library a derivative work of the application is, to say the least, a stretch?not to mention the fact that we?re talking about libc here, a library with a highly standard interface that?s been implemented any number of times and, heck, that?s even older than the GPL itself. It?s interpretations like this, folks, that give the GPL its reputation of being viral, and I know how much Richard Stallman hates that word. It?s one thing to ensure that actual derivative works of GPL code are themselves licensed under similar terms; it?s quite another to try to apply the same argument to code that clearly isn?t a derivative work in an attempt to spread free software at any cost. I?ve been a big GPL advocate for a long time, but that just strikes me as wrong.