Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > From my understanding, a case related to the changes made in Indiana should
> > be
> > in the open.
>
> Unfortunately, the case covered a broad range of changes, including why things
> were not included in OpenSolaris due to legal encumberments, and could not be
> made fully open as presented. (It might have been possible to split into a
Well this is what we, the OpenSolaris community, started to discuss since
September 2004 and I remember that I did even made some proposals on how to
work around these problems. I am of course expecting that such discussions are
done in the open as an open discussion is able to solve problems that a closed
discussion cannot.
> series of fasttracks, some open and some closed, but then the ARC would likely
> ask for an umbrella case like this one to explain how it all fits together and
> the overall project plan, and we'd be back where we are now.) At the review,
> the project team said they were considering what materials they can make open,
> but that's work that's not yet done.
See above. I did e.g. propose to replace the closed source based "pax" by
star's pax CLI and I am a bit disappointed that such discussions did never lead
to a constructive result because such discussion have been sooner or later
finished by Sun people.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
