> On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > I can't agree with this. I think the processes are > more of an issue > > than any contributor agreement. > > The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many > that needs to > be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and > enumerate every one of > them that came to mind, but the CA was at the top of > the list for me. > > > Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG > will somehow > > magically make the people that have second thoughts > about this feel > > any better. The organization will likely be seen > merely as a puppet > > of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!). > > I'm talking a real org here, such as a 501(3)(c). > (Here in the US, > that is the legal definition of a not-for-profit > organization). It > would be a legal entity all its own, with its own > board, elections > and constitution. Sounds familiar, right? But what it > would do is > form a concrete basis for, to use a metaphor, "the > separation of > church and state". All legal dealings would be with > the ORG, not > SUNW. By extension, that means the community.... > which is us. > > Being a ORG-proper is a lot more than just > registering a .org domain > and operating under it.
I know that, which is why I said ORG and not .org. The point is that anything associated with SUN regardless of legal status or not will likely be construed as a mere puppet organization. As it is right now, some people already falsely accuse the existing governance, CAB, etc. as being nothing more than window dressing. > > Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing > with Fedora and > > they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I > know. So I > > don't see how this matters... > > But it does, because there is a CA in existence > /today/... that /all/ > non-SUNW people who want to contribute have to sign. > My issue isn't > the CA.. it's a good idea. Accountability is good. > My issue is with > who is administering the CA. For someone who gets the > OpenSolaris > code, makes a fix, and wants to put it back, they > have to make a deal > with Sun Microsystems Inc to do so... not the > Community as I believe > that's who it should be with. > > /dale Great in theory, but no proof one way or the other. At least the existing way is safe legally speaking. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
