Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: > >> 2) The removal of the open source requirement. >> >> That's a thornier one. The OGB owns no copyright in the code and can >> therefore >> make no pronouncements as to licensing. The fact remains that we should be >> an open source community and many people have joined the community on that >> basis. Strengthening of the purpose from the charter might make it easier. >> > > But it's a requirement that OpenSolaris has never fully met - you still can't > build a fully open source distro of OpenSolaris, and declaring that everything > we've shipped isn't really a product of the OpenSolaris community until the > Emanicipation Project is completed doesn't make sense. > > Perhaps the compromise position would be to replace the current text of: > > All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community shall be licensed > to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses > approved by the Open Source Initiative. > > With: > > All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community shall be licensed > to the public free of charge under one or more licenses approved by > the OpenSolaris Governing Board. > > With all due respect.. I think the OSI is more qualified than the OGB to determine which license(s) are suitable for an open source project. The real goal here is to build a fully open source distro based on OpenSolaris technology. This is something I've personally spent a lot of time working on and planning completely outside of the emancipation project. I'm sure the intentions here are well meaning, but to make the de facto and de jure closer to one in this case is a significant regression. My superficial understanding is that Sun can't contribute to the emancipation project since there needs to exist a clear separation. As a compromise any "Open"Solaris technology distro which isn't packaged and building under an entirely OSI approved license must not use "Open" in the name. The other "problem" here is that the OpenSolaris Community really isn't producing OpenSolaris. The fact is that Sun is very generously providing OpenSolaris. Is this part of the emancipation projects goals or which group should consider some sort of sustainability plan or further community role in the development of "Open"Solaris technology.
In my *very* humble opinion the best route to more closely match reality would be to take the current "Open"Solaris, rename it Indiana and let it continue in parallel to SXCE as it already does. From there the OpenSolaris community is only orphaned from producing a sponsored OS until a fully open one exists and is *approved* by a community vote. The community I'm sure is capable of determining which OpenSolaris technology distribution(s) it should advocate and the end result is pressure on the community to join together instead of trying to dictate or influence Sun's goals. The other way to handle this is let the OGB vote on the approved distribution, but getting more people involved and aware is a good thing sometimes. Would the OpenSolaris community and or Sun possible help this effort? It's beyond the scope of this email, but I'm more than happy to go into technical and community related issues holding back the progress of removing the encumbered parts of an OpenSolaris technology distro. (For private emails please use codestr0m at osunix org) Kindly, ./Christopher --- Community driven OpenSolaris Technology - http://www.osunix.org blog: http://www.codestrom.com
