> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan > Coopersmith wrote: > > The only statement that makes is that you > misunderstand the licenses. > > > > A BSD-licensed project could require contributor > agreements to avoid the > > sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the > BSD license to drop the > > hated advertising clause and they had to get each > copyright owner to agree > > to relicense under the same terms. > > This is not about license, it's about process. Today, > as it stands, you can > bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a > contributers agreement, > this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a > contributer agreement (from > Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what > the BSD project requires. > You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about > Sun's legal team > misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to > know the legalities of > these licenses pretty well, IMO.
That isn't true as far as I know. Every contribution I make has to be made under the contributor agreement. Any time I have offered to make a contribution I've been reminded of or asked for my contributor agreement number. The Free Software Foundation also requires a contributor agreement, and so does the Apache foundation, and so do others. I have no idea why people are suddenly holding onto the idea that the contributor agreement is the problem when no clear indicator has proven that. > To me the statement this process makes is that BSD > code is more open and free > than CDDL code. CDDL was a good idea, it does much of > what many felt was the > best at the time. I think you're mixing up licensing and project requirements. I have seen nothing anywhere on this site that says I can contribute code to the OpenSolaris project, regardless of license, without a contributor agreement. Please point me to where it says I can do this. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
