On Wednesday 09 August 2006 02:07 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't see that as an issue at all; and making a mountain out of a > molehill is wrong.
A mountain out of a molehill? I don't think so. When I approach an IHV/OEM vendor, and advocate they use a specific license, I feel obligated to not just provide lip service to them, but to offer what I feel is the best solution. The standard 3 clause BSD license seems to be the best license for everyone to work with, FSF, Sun, everyone. I feel bad that I have to say that CDDL is not without issues in the open source community. > We should also not overlook the fact that some people are looking at > OpenSolaris as an alternative for Linux *precisely because* we do not > use the GPL; there are a lot of people who have issues with using GPL'ed > code because of the viral clauses. Many of these we can get on board > *only* if we do not use the GPL. (But we can't use the GPL, because ...) This is a valid point, and I myself fall into this camp. I didn't use GPL for code I released a few years ago, and placed it under BSD (see above;-). > No; I suggest not doing anything. And I suggest we win people over for the > CDDL in those places where rational discussions are possible. I have to do something, since I'm on the IHV/OEM team, and have asked legal to help me on this, and to make sure all of us are on the same page. > But when rational discussion is not possible we should avoid the subject > of license altogether because you can't win an argument if one side is not > rational. Since I wasn't involved, hard for me to say what could or could not have been rational. I like to think of myself as rational, not that I can reason with them, I've failed with Debian in the past. My issue with Debian was over the fact that I wrote device drivers that didn't provide source code, and didn't export the proper GPL defines in the header files, so was tainted (product never shipped though). I still don't feel they were tainted, because it was for security to use with credit card information. This was not like a NIC driver, or disk controller, yet I was told I used the wrong technology (software), rather than their preferred way (hardware). Truth be it that I used both, just can't be too cautious when dealing with people's credit card info, IMO. So, this confuses me in the sense that Sun did the right thing on their license, IMO, and are working towards a completely free system. I feel the goal of our community should be to remove all encumbered code until we have a 100% free system. In seeing apt working to install OpenSolaris packages (albeit not SysV but I can live with .debs), he pains me to know that they've solved the very problem that has plagued Solaris for years, that there has been no way to update and install over the net. Sure, there are other alternatives like blastwave, shillix, belenix, pkgsrc, but none of them have gotten to the level of Nexenta which has a full install and packaging system to create a running system. Do we create our own apt? As a community, do we design and write our own transport to handle our own base for all OpenSolaris distribution to use? Maybe wrapping pkgadd to use http is the answer? So far Nexenta is the only one to solve install and packaging. -- Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
