Not true. All contributions require you to sign a CA. We need to be
sure that you either wrote the code or have the right to it. We don't
want to run afoul of hidden patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
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.
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.
And just because someone like Apple is happy to take our free code in no way
shows CDDL to be a success or accepted, it's when the changes get back into
the mainline that one can place a value on that.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
