Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under a BSD license. Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person to sign a CDA. Do you know something different Casper? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under a BSD license. Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person to sign a CDA. And you've been told on multiple occasions that you are wrong. CDA is only needed for code contributed to OpenSolaris by the contributor. CDA is related to how we get the code, not the license it is under. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under a BSD license. Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person to sign a CDA. Do you know something different Casper? False. Inside Sun, it's just follow the inbound opensource process; the author generally has nothing to do with it but legal needs to sign of on the license. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA. Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under a BSD license. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Sponsors are an artifact resulting from our lack of an external SCM. Even with a sponsor, every non-Sun employee that wants to contribute code to OpenSolaris must sign the CA. Period. You have to get that BSD license out of your head. It does not affect the process in any way. You must follow the same steps no matter what the license is. Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote: As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A BSD license does not give you a free pass. For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee, whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you haven't been doing that, we need to talk.) Ok, that clears it up for me some, and I'm internal.:-) If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA. This pretty much applies to everyone, since they need to have a sponsor to begin with. Maybe I'm missing something here... -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
From where I see it, the participation issue is due to a process that comes pretty close to making someone a unpaid Sun employee - of sorts. To even have a contribution considered, I have to sign the Contributor Agreement. That agreement is with Sun Microsystems Inc, not OpenSolairs.ORG. Note the capital ORG, by which I mean The OpenSolaris Organization. There is no OpenSolaris Foundation or any legal entiry of the sort you could have a contract with. We've already explained in detail why the contributor agreement is needed and why it is bad for Linux that it does not have one (it's too late now for them to get one). But the FSF understand legal afairs better than Linux did and it does require a signed contributor agreement. Now the CA isn't a bad thing and it, like it has been already pointed out, is valuable to the community in the long view in terms of code stewardship. The problem is that the CA is not part of the community, it's with a corporate entity, and raises a situation where a potential contributor can be put into a sticky situation. Such as? This raises additional concern to someone new because the relationship between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW seems rather nebulous, and it's hard to tell what sandbox the ORG's feet are firmly planted in, or where it's heading. For crying out loud, the photo of the CAB members has a big honkin' Sun logo in the background. It's not nebulous at all: there's no OpenSolaris.org legal entity; it is run by Sun and Sun employees plus a cast of external volunteers. Sun pays. This is NOT to say that Sun's efforts in both in terms of birthing OpenSolaris and the manhours spent by its staff contributing to it are not appreciated... but I think that by the 2 year point, there needs to be a distinct, tangible separation between the two. The umbilical cord needs to be cut at some point; and that point, in terms of peoples' patience, is approaching. So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not SUNW) member and I want to be involved. Many people outside Sun can edit web pages on opensolaris.org. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open and free. Ah, you mean Apple *steals* *free* software? Sometimes, I have the impression that people object to this somehow; if you can't accept other people using your work within the terms of the opensource license you released it under, then you probably should not be in the opensource business. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Shawn Walker wrote: Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it either despite compatibility of the licenses. The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean squat. +1 -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins? Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control Rubbish. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd, there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a ) There is the issue of tainting, one has to be very careful which engineers can work on this. To be safe you probably shouldn't use any of the engineers that have ever worked on the existing closed code when doing a clean room implementation, even if that is just porting from another os. BTW for libc_i18n.a I highly suspect that using a GPL implementation could be problematic! If you really want to help with the IKE/IPsec case (all of IPsec is open source already it is just the userland IKE daemon/utils that is not) then please come over the security community and help us port something like Racoon. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote: If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in the world Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that... Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests this is exactly what would happen. And this would matter how exactly? It's well known that there's a spat between Linux (Sorry, GNU/Linux) and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is going nowhere; they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that the kind of company we want to keep? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist (as far as I know). -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote: If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in the world Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that... Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests this is exactly what would happen. And this would matter how exactly? It's well known that there's a spat between Linux (Sorry, GNU/Linux) and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is going nowhere; they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that the kind of company we want to keep? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist (as far as I know). Solaris is a distribution of Sun Microsystem, only Sun can decide to go with GNU userland. On the other hand, we already have GNU/OpenSolaris NexentaOS: http://www.gnusolaris.org -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing alone is not enough, but still will be helpful first step. What should be the benefit from adding a less free license to the code? Could you give concrete examples what problems dual lisensing would cure? 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
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 opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Correct. If the code is a pull, i.e., a Sun employee is pulling outside code into OpenSolaris, then a CA isn't required because a) all Sun employees sign a similar agreement when they join; and b) all code that comes in via this route undergoes a more extensive legal review. (We have an internal legal tool called OSR, Open Source Review, that all incoming code must go through. I and my VP have to sign off on all incoming code.) Alan Coopersmith wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:32 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: You should be able to do the same for CDDL if you're trying to treat the software as an external package we distribute the way we do with many outside projects, and not as something integrated into our project and which will evolve long-term as part of our code tree and not track an external community. No, I don't think it's possible. I believe you will be required to sign the agreement if you want to license the code under CDDL, but you won't if you license the code under BSD. That only makes sense if the original author was contributing the code directly to OpenSolaris.If we're choosing to pull from another project, we wouldn't ask them to sign over their copyright to us - it's still a difference of how the code is coming in, not what the license was. If the code is BSD licensed, we're pulling it in, not having it contributed. I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, knowingly, without a signed agreement. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, knowingly, without a signed agreement. Sure they would, if it's an outside project we're shipping just as we do GNOME, X, Mozilla, etc. You'ld go through the Open Source Review process just like any other open source code. Signed agreements are only asked for contributions to our code base. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, knowingly, without a signed agreement. Why do you think that? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open and free. Ah, you mean Apple *steals* *free* software? Sometimes, I have the impression that people object to this somehow; if you can't accept other people using your work within the terms of the opensource license you released it under, then you probably should not be in the opensource business. Casper I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the software should allow usage, under any circumstances. This is why I like the BSD license. Do not license any software under the BSD license that you do not want to truely be open and free. I have some software that I licensed under BSD because I specifically didn't want the GPL viral effect to every be a concern. It can be used for non-commercial and commercial use, it is free software as far as I'm concerned. Apple is welcome to take it, even if they don't put anything back. But the fact that I have received patches from some of the Linux movers and shakers is a statement in itself. If you love something, let it go, and if it loves you it will come back. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
We don't. I was being hypothetical. Shawn Walker wrote: OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only files --- those won't mix with CDDL. (The GPLv3 files already in OpenSolaris have the assembly exception which allows them to mix with incoming CDDL files. But if incoming GPLv3 files don't have an assembly exception, they won't be able to mix with the CDDL files already in OpenSolaris.) -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. How can we have files already in OpenSolaris under a license that doesn't formally exist yet? Which ones? -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed? In my opinion,yes And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing? Are you sure that the solution is to add a new license? Ok,Its could be right,but is there only one solution,and this solution? Could be some other problems before CDDL? I think,it's very difficult to promote a free community tied up with a corporation.I don't know if its could be everybody thinking but I've a suspect that every outside ask as prerequirements free,open and independence.So,are these defects of CDDL license? In my opinion,no. Giacomo This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, knowingly, without a signed agreement. Why do you think that? Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will ship in a Sun product. Maybe you have a different experience. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A BSD license does not give you a free pass. For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee, whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you haven't been doing that, we need to talk.) I'm sure exposing our internal workings is boring for people, but there you go. Some folks complain about Sun being too opaque. ;-) I just wanted to clear up some confusion here. Alan DuBoff wrote: On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project. I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in, knowingly, without a signed agreement. Why do you think that? Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will ship in a Sun product. Maybe you have a different experience. -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote: As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A BSD license does not give you a free pass. For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee, whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you haven't been doing that, we need to talk.) Ok, that clears it up for me some, and I'm internal.:-) If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA. This pretty much applies to everyone, since they need to have a sponsor to begin with. Maybe I'm missing something here... -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will ship in a Sun product. That's absolutely not the case. There's a preponderance of software under different licenses (Apache, GPL, BSD, to numerous to mention really) This is what our whole inbound open source process is about. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Having read this thread in full, and the other one too, (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=23034tstart=0) I'm going to add my two cents: First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the Linux kernel cannot change. He cannot change the license from GPLv2 to anything else. The authors of the code retain copyright, have only released it under the GPLv2, and he does not have the manpower/ability to track down every single copyright holder and ask them to re-release their changes under another license. This is why Sun wants people to turn over the copyright for the code their submit, to avoid that problem in the future. Secondly, the problem you are trying to solve, I think, will not be solved by using a different license, but rather by taking the whole enchilada outside of Sun. First, go read: http://weblogs.java.net/blog/driscoll/archive/2005/07/were_not_going_1.html and pay close attention to all the comments. They express my position fairly well (more: http://weblogs.java.net/blog/driscoll/archive/2005/07/tainting_or_wer.html) Ok, so now that you get my drift, look again at the problem you're trying to solve, and ask yourself: How do we solve that problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that what Sun M... Inc. wants is greater Solaris adoption. At least that's the impression I get from the outside. Now, what makes people deploy an os. Let's see, it could be because they need it to run their application, or because they need it to run their applications very fast, or even because they need to to run their applications very stably (is that a word?), or yet because they need it to run their applications very fast and very stably. Now, I'm going to go out on another limb and make an assumption that people who now work on the Linux kernel didn't start out there. They were working on an application. They ran the application on Linux, and somehow, their application was not performing fast or stably enough (and maybe was not running at all), and so, feeling the itch, they took a deep breath, rolled up their sleeves, and headed to http://lxr.linux.no/source/ and http://www.linux.org/docs/lists.html and hooked into linux-kernel and linux-kernel-announce. Then they talked, and learned, and compiled, and worked hard to improve Linux to get their (get this) applications running/running better. You want people involved in Open Solaris? Make it super easy for people to get it, run their applications on it, hack on it, and contribute. Oh, and don't think they love you and will give you their copyright. Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. Sorry for being ranty. came here from http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/and_more_opensolaris_amp_gplv3 This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the Linux kernel cannot change. He cannot change the license from GPLv2 to anything else. The authors of the code retain copyright, have only released it under the GPLv2, and he does not have the manpower/ability to track down every single copyright holder and ask them to re-release their changes under another license. This is why Sun wants people to turn over the copyright for the code their submit, to avoid that problem in the future. Exactly, and it is very important that we have the assurance of a copyright assignment for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation requires one if you contribute to GCC, etc. You want people involved in Open Solaris? Make it super easy for people to get it, run their applications on it, hack on it, and contribute. Oh, and don't think they love you and will give you their copyright. Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. Sorry for being ranty. came here from http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/and_more_opensolari s_amp_gplv3 It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and contribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. The copyright attribution is a necessary and needful part of any project. Without it, a project is only opening itself up to the very same problems that the Linux community is facing now, and you need proper record keeping when it comes time to deal with legal inquiries anyway. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
--- Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly, and it is very important that we have the assurance of a copyright assignment for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation requires one if you contribute to GCC, etc. It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and contribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. The copyright attribution is a necessary and needful part of any project. Without it, a project is only opening itself up to the very same problems that the Linux community is facing now, and you need proper record keeping when it comes time to deal with legal inquiries anyway. Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want to release their copyright (something about getting paid). Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote: future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want to release their copyright (something about getting paid). My understanding of Sun's CA is that one doesn't release one's copyright; one assigns the same rights to another party (Sun) in addition to keeping them for yourself. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want to release their copyright (something about getting paid). It is joint copyright, as I understand it, not released copyright. The code will always remain available under the CDDL because you can't retroactively unlicense it. The file itself will also remain under the CDDL, as changes to the file need to be given back. At the point where Sun changes the license, the code will remain available under the license(s) specified at the time the license is changed. In some cases it may happen that code contributed to OpenSolaris find its way back into older, non-CDDL Solaris releases; this is one of the things the joint copyright assignment allows Sun to do. This is also required for OpenSolaris to work for Sun: if not we'd have to disallow contributions which fix bugs we might want to back port or features are customers want now rather than in Sun's first Solaris release based on OpenSolaris. Now, about getting paid. Well, you really should not contribute to free software if you feel that certain uses of that software entitle you to get paid for it in currency other then brownie points. Whenever you feel this hurting, just think of all the other software you're using which you did not pay for and which was written by others who weren't getting paid for it; and realize that some of those may well be using your software. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want to release their copyright (something about getting paid). It is joint copyright, as I understand it, not released copyright. The code will always remain available under the CDDL because you can't retroactively unlicense it. The file itself will also remain under the CDDL, as changes to the file need to be given back. At the point where Sun changes the license, the code will remain available under the license(s) specified at the time the license is changed. In some cases it may happen that code contributed to OpenSolaris find its way back into older, non-CDDL Solaris releases; this is one of the things the joint copyright assignment allows Sun to do. This is also required for OpenSolaris to work for Sun: if not we'd have to disallow contributions which fix bugs we might want to back port or features are customers want now rather than in Sun's first Solaris release based on OpenSolaris. Thanks, that clears things up for me. Now, about getting paid. Well, you really should not contribute to free software if you feel that certain uses of that software entitle you to get paid for it in currency other then brownie points. I'm not speaking for myself (You'd be be hard pressed to find FOSS code I've contributed. I write prose much better than code.) I am just saying that for some people, contributing to FOSS and contributing to code that a CORP can use is a different story. (I may be wrong, but that would not be the first time) Whenever you feel this hurting, just think of all the other software you're using which you did not pay for and which was written by others who weren't getting paid for it; and realize that some of those may well be using your software. I hear you. I have no problem with that. And no, it never hurts. I'm grateful. Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote: Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. +1 contributor agreement's gotta go. GPL or CDDL is worthless mouth flapping with this, closed_bins (particularly the closed parts of libc) , and the internal ON gate (which I'm told is being worked on that's great) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote: Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. +1 contributor agreement's gotta go. We can't have opensolaris without this; it's one reason Linux why Linux and possibly other projects can't evolve its license; the FSF requires it to. (That and 10 other legal reasons; not having it would have only one advantage: we wouldn't be having this license discussion as the license would be cast in stone for perpetuity.) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote: Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. +1 contributor agreement's gotta go. ... I don't get this. The FSF have such an agreement, as do various other projects. What's wrong with ours? (which as I understand it, is actually nicer than most). -- Rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins? Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control Rubbish. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd, there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a ) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins? Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control Rubbish. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions? With respect, why should they? What business value would this work give them. This sounds like a perfect task for a com community project, it's members of the community that wants this isn't it? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Rubbish. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd, there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a ) Don't Rubbish me. It's not as simple as that; you seem to assume that the closed bins are all about imported source. There are, however, two reasons why bins are closed, not one: 1) source written against specifications under NDA 2) source purchased;/written by 3rd parties 3) source for which both apply. We could fix #2 but we have no hope in hell fixing #1 other than through lawyers. So I'm saying it's not exclusively under out control. Then there are certain resource realities we face; unless someone ups the priority for rewriting the stuff ourselves, we'd rather fix stuff and make new stuff. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
John Sonnenschein writes: On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins? Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control Rubbish. Not rubbish. Releasing those particular sources is *not* under our control. Rewriting them is under anyone's control, provided that the person involved isn't tainted. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions? In essence, yep. The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd, there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a ) Sounds like great community projects. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
James Carlson wrote: Rewriting them is under anyone's control, provided that the person involved isn't tainted. And that is what makes it hard for *Sun* to rewrite these bits - if the spec/implementation is covered by a NDA, then the very people who would be the best ones to reimplement it, can't, because they are tainted. As you imply, if it were easy, we would have already done it. The mere fact that we haven't implies that it isn't as easy as it appears. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 1/31/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins? Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control Rubbish. It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd, there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that you can't build ON at all, even in a degraded state, is libc_i18n.a ) I think what Casper is hinting at, as I have seen many other Sun employee's also hint at, is that we do not need to wait for Sun to fix this problem. -- Eric Enright ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
I don't care what license is used, I care only about acceptance, and that means for the most amount of open source software that we can be accepted by. Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! It is rather unsettling to me that someone would care more about acceptance than success. The two are not necessarily synonymous. If the OpenSolaris community only wants acceptance, then it will always live an unhappy life much like real people who seek the same thing do... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
GPL, on the other hand, is aimed at forcing the world to adopt the FSF's Free philosophy, and to discourage non-free software in all forms. This raises an other point I'd like to make, suppose you have a choice of different licenses and they are named: Fascist Source Code License Communist Source Code License Republican Source Code License Democratic Source Code License People's Source Code License Fox News Source Code License None of the Above Source Code License. which one would you pick? I'd suggest none of the above; politics doesn't mix well with anything people do in real life; I believe programming is one of these things. Chosing the GPL is making a political statement; requiring people to publish code under the GPL is requiring them to subscribe to that statement. Casper That mirrors my feelings as well. The CDDL is not about a political statement, the GPL very much is. I'm not sure I want to be part of a project making political statements. I view the CDDL as a basic quid pro quo agreement with very liberal terms. The GPL does not seem like that to me at all... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
- If the main GPL project in the OpenSolaris space is not even considering GPLv3, what advantage does this have? - What can be done against a tear-off CDDL community split? For me the big difference is the fact that GPLv3 will remove the grey area of device drivers and linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3 would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems should use it. I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely, but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2? Casper Agreed, what good will it do then? As it is right now, there is nothing stopping someone from porting Linux drivers to Solaris/OpenSolaris and distributing them so that users can use them. The only thing we can't do is integrate them directly into OpenSolaris derivatives directly (possibly, I am not a lawyer). If they were the same license, it wouldn't matter much to our main project anyway since we likely couldn't get the copyright attribution we need to integrate it! So, again, what's the point? -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Shawn Walker wrote: I don't care what license is used, I care only about acceptance, and that means for the most amount of open source software that we can be accepted by. Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! It is rather unsettling to me that someone would care more about acceptance than success. The two are not necessarily synonymous. If the OpenSolaris community only wants acceptance, then it will always live an unhappy life much like real people who seek the same thing do... Can you show us where Alan said he cares more about acceptance than success? Just because two concepts aren't necessarily synonymous doesn't make them mutually exclusive. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. -- Erast Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have just opinions, emotions and fear. I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say. Debian doesn't even accept some of the Free Software Foundation's licenses, so what's your answer to that? Sorry, but Debian is unreasonable in their demands in many people's opinions. Why do you think Ubuntu is succeeding where they *failed*? -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote: it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. I submit that the license is not why there are fewer external contributions than we'd like. I think it's because it's an onerous process at the moment, and perhaps because people might be wary of signing a Contributor Agreememnt. I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins. The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground. If anything, I think people are afraid to contribute to non-Sun CDDLed projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL factions. I remember some assertions that said words to the effect of ownership of any CDDLed code reverts to Sun, when that is patently not the case. and we don't want to constantly fight against this FUD... -- Erast Sorry, but rolling over and giving up seems like the lame way out of this. Not only that, it is not an option for me personally. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a bad idea. I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain popularity. Most people here(from the responses i've read) seem quite happy with the current license. I'm quite suprised that some think the community isn't growing fast enough. It certainly is active and at least your attracting the right people. Everytime i've read a discussion on the GPL, i'm left wondering whether its a license or a cult. Maybe it just has a LOT of really poor representatives. Of course I might be hanging out in the wrong places. It also appears that to draw those people in, you'd also need to adopt a new name- linux. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Shawn Walker wrote: Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the license. Whether this means not anything else as well is not clear. I'm just saying that I find that particular terminology in any context unsettling. Acceptance should almost never be more important to me personally. Acceptance *of the license* and quite frankly, I agree with him. In the context of a license, success is impossible without acceptance. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it either despite compatibility of the licenses. The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean squat. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 1/31/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: I don't care what license is used, I care only about acceptance, and that means for the most amount of open source software that we can be accepted by. Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! It is rather unsettling to me that someone would care more about acceptance than success. The two are not necessarily synonymous. If the OpenSolaris community only wants acceptance, then it will always live an unhappy life much like real people who seek the same thing do... Can you show us where Alan said he cares more about acceptance than success? Just because two concepts aren't necessarily synonymous doesn't make them mutually exclusive. Ian Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the license. Whether this means not anything else as well is not clear. I'm just saying that I find that particular terminology in any context unsettling. Acceptance should almost never be more important to me personally. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote: As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there. And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56 changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL project just because of that. Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ? Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ? If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence only opinions about what might happen. Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community not acceptance of CDDL is another one. On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear. -- Erast Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have just opinions, emotions and fear. I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say. Debian doesn't even accept some of the Free Software Foundation's licenses, so what's your answer to that? Sorry, but Debian is unreasonable in their demands in many people's opinions. Why do you think Ubuntu is succeeding where they *failed*? -Shawn you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing alone is not enough, but still will be helpful first step. also, I'm not sure that anybody here could clearly proof me that keeping CDDL-only OpenSolaris will help either. I tend to think that it will not hurt us more than it did already, but at the same time I think dual-licensing will actually improve our outside appearance and attract more folks on board. I think we need to vote.. :-) http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861 -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Brian McCafferty wrote: I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a bad idea. I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain popularity. Most people here(from the responses i've read) seem quite happy with the current license. I agree, the issue with non-SUNW participation is not the license, it's the org itself. In fact I'm sad to see that the trend is to pin the participation issues directly to what the license happens to be, because the CDDL is really a fine license to work under. From where I see it, the participation issue is due to a process that comes pretty close to making someone a unpaid Sun employee - of sorts. To even have a contribution considered, I have to sign the Contributor Agreement. That agreement is with Sun Microsystems Inc, not OpenSolairs.ORG. Note the capital ORG, by which I mean The OpenSolaris Organization. Now the CA isn't a bad thing and it, like it has been already pointed out, is valuable to the community in the long view in terms of code stewardship. The problem is that the CA is not part of the community, it's with a corporate entity, and raises a situation where a potential contributor can be put into a sticky situation. This raises additional concern to someone new because the relationship between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW seems rather nebulous, and it's hard to tell what sandbox the ORG's feet are firmly planted in, or where it's heading. For crying out loud, the photo of the CAB members has a big honkin' Sun logo in the background. This is NOT to say that Sun's efforts in both in terms of birthing OpenSolaris and the manhours spent by its staff contributing to it are not appreciated... but I think that by the 2 year point, there needs to be a distinct, tangible separation between the two. The umbilical cord needs to be cut at some point; and that point, in terms of peoples' patience, is approaching. If there's anything that could instigate a fork, it would be the failure to craft this separation. So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not SUNW) member and I want to be involved. /dale ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:02 pm, Shawn Walker wrote: I don't care what license is used, I care only about acceptance, and that means for the most amount of open source software that we can be accepted by. Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! It is rather unsettling to me that someone would care more about acceptance than success. The two are not necessarily synonymous. If the OpenSolaris community only wants acceptance, then it will always live an unhappy life much like real people who seek the same thing do... Well, it's rather unsettling when folks take statements out of context also, I never said anything about success, and word twisting my comments to mean that I don't consider success important is unfair. What is your point in your response, or is there even one? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:14 pm, Shawn Walker wrote: Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have just opinions, emotions and fear. I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say. It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open and free. Sun, OTOH, has taken the high road and licensed a massive amount of source into the open source world, and that is for all to use. The fact that Apple can even consider DTrace, ZFS, or other technologies that were put into OpenSolaris is a statement in itself. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote: The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground. IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't need to have a contributor agreement signed...??? It's not hard to realize that the reason for that is that the code is truely open and free, and the BSD license has been the only one to stand up in a court of law in that regard. Shaky legal ground? I think not. If code is truely open and free, you don't need any agreement between the author and Sun, and Sun is able to use it. This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement does that make about the code? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote: The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground. IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't need to have a contributor agreement signed...??? No license requires you to have a contributor agreement to release code under it - BSD is no different than GPL or CDDL there. Contributor agreements are required by projects who want central legal control for being able to change licenses or go after people who use their code without following the license terms. So, CDDL doesn't require a contributor agreement, the OpenSolaris project does. This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement does that make about the code? 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. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement does that make about the code? It says that the BSD licenses (and others like it) don't even begin to address the issues of patent liability, while the CDDL does. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
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. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:25 pm, John Plocher wrote: Alan DuBoff wrote: This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement does that make about the code? It says that the BSD licenses (and others like it) don't even begin to address the issues of patent liability, while the CDDL does. John, Ok, then why don't we need to cover patent liability on BSD code? IOW, why are our lawyers concerned with liability of CDDL code but not BSD? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Jan 31, 2007, at 10:01 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote: I don't think anyone is pinning participation exclusively on any license choice, per say. It's just one factor among many. People are already contributing to the project in many ways, and in fact, the community is starting to grow in ways not directly tied to opensolaris.org. Which is great. We need that diversity, especially for the non-coding types like me. The engineering will always be here (on opensolaris.org), but that's only one layer of the community (albeit a rather important layer :)). Some want to contribute more, though, and that's great. As we evolve some of the tools, that will be easier. I nod to pretty much all of what you write there, but the last sentence is something I want to illuminate. Oh, yes we need tools, and most certainly things need to be easier and mature... but we're approaching year #2. I don't want to be cynical just to be cynical, but much of my bother comes from the thought that if 2 years isn't enough, then what is enough? Four years? Five? Looking beyond two months from now, the roadmap is literally blank, and surely that's not because everything is finished. That roadmap is the public's way to benchmark progress, and it says nothing. I shot that image of the CAB in Sun's San Francisco office and the choice of background was mine exclusively. I simply liked it, that's all. The logo statement by me was a rhetorical one... put there to illustrate my point that perhaps, just perhaps, that A reason for so- so growth and poo-poo'ing by other FOSS crowds is that the /image/ of OpenSolaris makes it seem like a front for Sun to look good. Now, I'm not agreeing with that assessment, but if I consider the overall marketing and psychological impression of how one contributes to OpenSolaris, I can see how people can feel that way no matter how untrue to that the real situation may be. So my position is that OpenSolaris needs to be a free-standing ORG. Sun can still sponsor it, and most of the day-to-day technical dissertation and contributions would continue as they do today, but the ins and outs of evolution and maturity and - most importantly - process action and development, would happen on a 100% community basis, not with some parts here and other parts in SUNW. As you say, the upcoming OGB election is a promising step in this direction, as I hope it will result in a group that's less top-heavy with SUNW people... and nothing against SUNW people but such a result would have very good benefits for how the greater FOSS world perceives OpenSolaris. Now, to you License Warz folks, switching to GPLv3 would be just window dressing. I'm talking about a holistic, ground-up evolution of OpenSolaris as an organization. Changing licenses to appease the Linux folks would be, at the least, disingenuous since at the end of the day, OpenSolaris would still be the same organization underneath. Bigger and more honest gains can be had by other means: I've always disagreed with this analogy (the umbilical cord bit). When you say Sun what do you mean? Who are you interacting with? Execs or engineers? What about those 1,000 or so Sun Solaris engineers? Where do they go when thing so-called cord is cut? I'm referring to SUNW - the corporate entity, not at all the people we all know and appreciate. The proverbial cord I referred to was the cord of ownership. As I said before, if I want to contribute, I have to agree to a contract with SUNW. If I get one of those nice OpenSolaris badges for my website and alter it (and I have done so), it'll probably be a lawyer who represents SUNW taking me to task about it. That, and things in that vein are what I am referring to as the cord. Combined with the above and my statements two to four paragraphs up, I'll reiterate - OpenSolaris needs to be truly, 100% and absolutely owned by The Community. This Community is pretty much what we already have - Sun employees and people like myself and anyone else for that matter working to suggest, improve, and expand our golden egg. Make OS.org is own entity, assign the relevant trademarks to it, and send it off to college. SUNW has been good training wheels, but it's time to start seriously thinking of taking those off at a prudent point and let OpenSolaris live on its own. I believe that event and a very public journey towards realizing it would make a world of difference in terms of Community expansion into the future. /dale ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Hey, Stephen Harpster wrote: I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if people think it would be a good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris CDDL code with GPLv3. Of course that depends on what the final outcome of GPLv3 is, but assuming it looks close to what it is today, would you like that, not like that, or not care? I don't really believe I'm enough of a stakeholder in OpenSolaris (ON) to feel like I have a say in the matter, but what I'd really like to see is a set of scenarios of how this would work - in terms of committing code back, distributing code, and linking to the current closed sources. As a random aside, I'd be worried that dual licensing would attract more people to the code base that we still haven't been able to get to an operational level for non-Sun contributions - perhaps that's a good worry to have, but I'd really like to see serious progress being made before such a move is possible. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Agreed. I think a smoother streamlined integration process would be far more beneficial than any license changes or additions at this point. There aren't enough resources available to do this, and it's unfair to expect SUN employees to do this in their spare time. The engineers have enough to do :) -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Agreed. I think a smoother streamlined integration process would be far more beneficial than any l icense changes or additions at this point. There aren't enough resources available to do this, and it's unfair to expect SUN employees to do this in their spare time. The engineers have enough to do. Clearly, that would be a much more important step toward making OpenSolaris go forward then repainting it. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
