Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at opensolaris.org> [2008-06-19 16:56]:
>
>> John Plocher wrote:
>>
>>> [multiple replies in one message...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>>> > John Plocher wrote:
>>> >> From the OGB's perspective, all we are defining are three governance
>>> >> related roles:
>>> >>
>>> >> Participant - Someone who is interacting with our community
>>> >> Contributer - Someone who has contributed something significant
>>> >> to our community and has filed a contributer
>>> agreement
>>> >
>>> > Do you all literally mean this?
>>> > Only non-Sun community members file SCAs so that's a problem.
>>>
>>> Duh! It needs to include both, obviously. Or drop the requirement
>>> for a SCA (though, if we are indeed drawing a line around current practice,
>>> that practice does require the agreement...)
>>>
>>>
>> As I previously stated, this is false. There are contributions that
>> have come in the form of other licensing arrangements, such as BSD
>> licensed code. (See afe/mxfe for an example.) I can well imagine the
>> same might apply for Creative Commons licensed contributions as well.
>>
>> I would suggest dropping the SCA requirement.
>>
>
> Since BSD licensed code has no provision for patent licensing (SCA#3)
> and lacks an affidavit of original work (SCA#5), I would prefer to
> keep the SCA as required, in the interest in having a uniform and
> understood set of properties around contributions. That is, I would
> like to preserve the possibility of giving a foundation the cleanest
> set of copyright/patent/etc. information about the source that we can.
>
Too late. There is already a ton of useful code that is in Solaris that
is not covered under SCA or CDDL, and has no such guarantees. For
example, pretty much all of the desktop environment (X11, Gnome,
Mozilla), significant portions of the infrastructure (Apache, OpenSSL,
Sendmail), etc.
The idea that we won't accept any more integrations unless Sun has an
SCA on file from the original authors is a bit absurd.
-- Garrett
