Given a limited menu of just those two choices, and the use of the CDDL for the rest of OpenSolaris, the choice was obvious: BSD is compatible with CDDL, GPLv2 isn't.
Under those conditions, who made the decision seems to me to be little more than PR. I don't know the history of the porting work for this particular putback. But if it was something that Sun did internally and then "threw over the wall", then I don't see why it shouldn't be their choice (and perhaps even would have to be their responsibility) rather than that of some OpenSolaris related body (esp. since the latter may not have a bunch of its own lawyers, and may or may not even be presently equipped or allowed to make that sort of decision, let alone reasonably quickly). The added copyright notice (presumably for what was unique to the [Open]Solaris port) was Sun's, not that of Joe (or Jill) Contributor. To my way of thinking, that's yet another reason why it was legitimate for it to be Sun's decision which license to use. Had the work been done by an outside contributor, it would have been their decision (rather than the CAB/OGB/whatever). As far as I can see, only if the copyright was assigned to some OpenSolaris related entity (not unlike how the FSF likes to have copyright assigned to it for GPL code meant to be regarded as part of the GNU project) would such choices be up to that entity. The FSF is a non-profit corporation; AFAIK, neither the OGB nor anything else with a uniquely OpenSolaris but not Sun identity is an actual legal entity, able to hold copyrights (and thus choose licenses). Further, the OpenSolaris charter (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/charter.pdf) (which is _not_ superceded by the upcoming OpenSolaris Constitution) says in part: However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer to the OGB: (a) any title or right under copyright, patent, trademark, or other intellectual property law; (b) control of or interest in any asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries; (c) control of or interest in Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries. So while I recognize the sensitivities you're alluding to, I don't see that there's any way that anything other than what was done could have been done. IANAL, of course. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
