Cyril Plisko wrote:
Hi !
On Dec 20 the putback for
PSARC 2006/356 Reliable Datagram Sockets
6433451 Solaris support for Reliable Datagram Sockets over Infiniband
- RDS (2006/356)
went into the ON. Among other things there were afew files carried over
from
OpenIB project. For example :
usr/src/uts/common/io/ib/clients/rds/rdsib_buf.c
26 * Copyright (c) 2005 SilverStorm Technologies, Inc. All rights
reserved.
27 *
28 * This software is available to you under a choice of one of two
29 * licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU
30 * General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file
31 * COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the
32 * OpenIB.org BSD license below:
[BSD license text yanked]
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 ?
I think this is a sign of Sun internal processes becoming transparent
and of Sun developers having to serve two masters as we continue the
transition to open development.
When a Sun developer wants to use third-party open source, he/she must
get approval to do so. That approval includes choosing a license when
the third-party source is dual-licensed.
That's what happened here. Third-party code was brought inside Sun and
the engineering team followed the approval process. Part of that
process included choosing to use it with the OpenIB license.
There is a 'license.txt' file that includes the OpenIB license text; it
will be putback shortly. It was inadvertently not included in the
putback. And files licensed using an existing license should not have
the CDDL added to them; third-party licenses pass through as-is. That
will also be cleaned up.
Regarding the general question of the OGB taking on decisions about
license choice in similar situations, I believe there will need to be
discussions about that as well as other related topics as part of fully
implementing detailed development processes moving forward.
Bonnie
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
