Joerg said: "I believe, we should rather encourage Oracle to share their code
again following the CDDL."
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:13 AM, Joerg Schilling
<[email protected]> wrote:
Nikola M. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Or the difference exist because I think CDDL forces treating files that
> change previous code as patches and you maybe say, that treating files
> that change existing code as patches is - optional?
If you add code in new files, it is fully optional to the author whether the
new files are put under CDDL.
> I don't think text i quoted only allows - I think it _requires_ to treat
> files that change previous code as contribution and that it is Not
> optional. That is how copyleft works anyway anything one change is
> destined to be glued into next release (except of course additional
> files that do not change anything in previous code).
> So there are 2 types of files, ones that change something in previous
> code and others that do not.
This was one of the main topics during a long phone call I had with the
initiators of the CDDL in December 2004. As a result, all really ambiguous and
wrong text was changed following my proposals (e.g. making the CDDL compatible
with the EU Copyright law). Fir the text you quoted, it was (after the
discussion) obvious that this explains an option (not the default) for newly
added files.
> > They cannot change the license of code they do not own and aprox. 1/3
> > of the code in "hsfs" is owned by me because I was not payed for that
> > code and because I did not sign a contract that transfers the code to Sun.
> If that is such obvious, maybe they could just make a deal and monetize
> to you your parts since trey are using it in Solaris 11.
> Maybe you could ask them for compensation since they are obviously not
> following CDDL and not releasing S11 source code in any part. Maybe
> reaching some ground could be Ok for them, results of talks disclosed or
> not.
This is of course an option for Oracle, but they did not chose this option as
they currently illegaly distribute code. The interesting aspect of the German
law is that it introduces a lever that never becomes statute-barred as long as
the code in question is distributed ignoring the law.
> I have to mention, we have seen some source code leak at the S11 release
> time (with CDDL all over it, probably still is, bu it is unknown outside
> Orcl circles) so one can compare what they actually had inside at a time.
> It was strongly advised Not to look at it or reading it for reasons of
> spoiling one's brain with something one can't use openly. Yet, I needed
> to mention it :P
I believe, we should rather encourage Oracle to share their code again
following the CDDL. THe uestion is whether we should sue Oracle and whether
there would be people to support me if I did.
Jörg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Not happening anytime soon in its entirety - but most things are already
available enough for people to work on various parts.
Or, you can always beg and borrow the OSX/BSD/Linux streams.
As for Martin, he did provide source for his initial releases and was going to
make the latest patches available.
He pretty much told others what he was doing to solve various issues and even
where he was picking up some ideas and code. This was posted in a README and
his blogs. Does he even have to spell it out for some people?!?
Yet, 'demanding' one give you something for FREE without supporting them or
funding their work is very petty and fruitless.
Case in point, the various websites of BSD/Linux/other OS distros (and many
commercial websites) where this topic comes up to
gain patched source code for FREE (when an 'open source' license is being
enforced).
What happens, usually, is that the patches are REMOVED, and you are given the
original source - you then pay for the contributed work through support
channel, funding, or some donation.
Reality: You can demand nothing when you offer nothing. No penny, no code.
Most of the major distros are funded. But, without money or 'perks' - they lose
their developers.
As Martin said, he did his work to gain employment. He had a goal in mind, as
many other people have done in the past and are now either a CEO/CTO or Lead
Engineer, or Architect at their place of work.
People like Joerg and Martin are CERTIFIED or high-experienced Solaris
admins/programmers. They do know their material.
They have both developed their own distros before many others did - and Martin
supported SPARC equipment better than most open source distros did in the past.
I don't have to 'blow smoke' up anyone's backside. Just pointing out that
Martin did offer to help others and contribute source code and his work, as did
Joerg in some cases, but most people would rather steal other's work and claim
it as their own - or just steal it for their own hidden agendas. Maybe not
directly, but indirectly.
So, keep it real.
~K_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
