Edward Ned Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/40394-oracle- > > maintains-silence-on-opensolaris-future > > > > I really can't understand Oracle's lack of communication regarding the > > future of Opensolaris. > > Allow me to quote a couple of BS statements from that article: > > #1 "Sun released some of the code from Solaris but under a licence which > was somewhat restrictive when compared to the GNU General Public Licence."
This is what I did see first when reading the article.... > The truth is, CDDL is less restrictive than GPL. That's why it's not > compatible with GPL. Because CDDL is not restrictive enough to satisfy > GPL's over-reaching copyleft. CDDL grants too much freedom to be compatible > with GPL. The main problem with the GPL is not freedom but a very unclear and unspecific wording that is in conflict with the Copyright law. See: http://www.osscc.net/pdf/QualipsoA1D113.pdf http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/publications/article/Berkeley%20Law%20Journal%20softwarecombinations060403.pdf http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html The article from Professor (in Berlin and San Francisco) Lothar Determan on the GPL and derivative works is very clear about the "unfair contract terms" in the GPL and contrains extremely many quotations for further reading. I am not even convinced that there is a better "compatibility" between BSD and GPL. Note that changing the license is a right that is reserved by law to the Copyright holder. As the BSD License does neither explicitly permit to change the license nor explicitely permits to sub-license BSD licensed code, you cannot do this with BSD code. Any person alway receives all rights from the original Copyright holder of the BSD code and that person selected the BSD license. The GPL requires (in order to create an "derived work") that you "put the work as a whole under GPL" and this would require to relicense the BSD code under a different license. So this does obviously not work. It wold be strange anyway to declare other peoples work as a "change you made" on GPL code. So the _only_ way to combine BSD code with GPL code is by creating a "collective work". In a collective work, the GPL is only valid to the GPL part. If you now compare again you will see that the only difference between combining BSD code with GPL code and doing this with CDDL code is that you need to keep the CDDL code in separate files while you could mix BSD- and GPL-code inside one single file. > #2 Nearly six months after it completed the acquisition of Sun > Microsystems, Oracle Corporation is yet to make a public statement about the > future of the OpenSolaris project. > > Everybody knows about public statements such as "next release H1 2010" etc. > Although it's a negative thing that this expectation wasn't delivered ontime > (still waiting), it's simply false to say there was never any statement. In case this has been forgotten: We the OGB is not responsible for a binary distribution called "Indiana". We are responsible for the open "co-development" community that constructively collaborates with the primary owner of the OpenSolaris codce base. In order to be able to do support this task of the PGB, we need to be able to talk to people from Oracle and this dis not yet happen. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
