On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 08:27:41PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> 57 /*
> 58 * Sun elects to include this software in Sun product
> 59 * under the OpenIB BSD license.
>
> That last sentence sounds a bit odd to me. While only Sun gets
> to decide what to include in Sun product, we are talking about
> OpenSolaris here. And it is not a Sun decision what license to
> choose. In this specific case I am sure the choice of license is
> obviously correct. In general, however, comments like that should
> not, IMHO, appear in the OpenSolaris code base.
> It is to be decided by community/CAB/OGB what license to
> use in OpenSolaris code base.
>
> So is it a sign of Sun isn't taking it [OpenSolaris] seriously, or
> a trivial ignorance of most of the Sun' developers ?
Hi Cyril,
Nice catch :) I suppose this could be done one of two ways:
1) The committer makes the decision. (in this case, since the committer
works for Sun and this is being done under Sun's "contributor
agreement", the wording is "Sun elects to include..." as opposed to
"Cyril Plisko elects to include..." if you had committed it)
or
2) The OpenSolaris community/OGB/CAB makes the decision.
I don't believe the OGB/CAB should make the decision, since they are
governance boards - governing how the OpenSolaris community should be
run, and this is a technical/legal issue, not a governance issue.
The OpenSolaris community might be interesting; though it may be hard to
find consensus. Possibly a smaller team (perhaps the project i-team) or
something?
Inevitably, some legal signoff is going to have to happen. Currently,
with the sponsorship process, this is happening via the sponsor - but
this is clearly going to have to be modified when we have an external
open tree with external direct committers.
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
