[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3 delayed by Novell/Microsoft
Regardez, ...All the more reason to go to a BSD-like License. :) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 01/31/07 16:44,: I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical. I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in. (Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation) That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it. Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither license can be ripped off? This is a key point I'd like to better understand. I know we need the final v3 to flush out the conversation for OpenSolaris, but do we need the final v3 to explore this specific issue generally? I've never understood the concept of able to choose your license via a dual licensing plan, but if both are required (can't rip one off) than developers would have to follow both and both would be compatible, right? Jim We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such dual licensing would have a strong negative impact. (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ Here, here! As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what does the OpenSolaris project hope to accomplish by changing the current license? [/b] As the common quote goes, Solaris isn't Linux, so why try to hide this wolf in a sheep's clothing? What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL projects? Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL OS...simple is often dumb. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wes Williams Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:26 AM To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3? More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ Here, here! As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what does the OpenSolaris project hope to accomplish by changing the current license? [/b] Linux and current GPL developers are less reluctant to adopt Open Solaris as a viable development platform because of the FUD behind the CDDL. As the common quote goes, Solaris isn't Linux, so why try to hide this wolf in a sheep's clothing? So Sun can attract more outside development What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL projects? Developers, Developers, Developers. Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL OS...simple is often dumb. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
[...] and yes .. I'm frustrated that a whack of Linux community people never showed up. IBM people are not here. That the mail lists are full of Sun.COM email addresses and people internal with internal agenda's etc etc. A lot of things just seem behind closed doors still. Don't forget the Tadpole guy that _is_ here; I think I saw someone from Fujitsu, too. There are some (if not a lot) of people who've worked with and contributed to Linux here. And do you have access to the registration information, such that you _know_ there's nobody from IBM here? What about Apple porting DTrace (and according to some rumors, working on zfs) to MacOS X? What about the zfs to FreeBSD port? What about various drivers whose starting points have come from one or more of the *BSDs? What about increasing amount of external open source software available for Solaris, both via Sun and via your efforts? What about the two ATT ksh guys participating in the ksh93 integration project? What about the deal with Intel? Having said that, I do agree with some things you've said. Sun's marketing department needs a major overhaul; anyone that thinks that changing the name of products every couple of years or other such shell games (which although not marketing's fault, dual-licensing also is _unless_ clear benefits can be identified) is worse than useless, insofar as renaming for anything less than a total rewrite simply distracts and confuses, and done repeatedly, wastes credibility. As to whether there _would_be_ clear benefits to dual-licensing, I think that needs (a) wait to see exactly what GPLv3 would look like, (b) identify what those benefits might be and how they might work (keeping in mind that _just_ seeking acceptance is a defensive position at best) and how likely they are to work, (c) take into account any downside of a dual-license arrangement, and (d) reach out to not only the OpenSolaris community, but also the Linux and FSF folks (between which there may be a split between GPLv2 _only_ or GPLv2 _or_later_), the *BSD folks, Apple, Tadpole, Fujitsu, IBM, NCR (if they're still doing anything with Solaris), Dell (if they give a darn), and anyone else that has an interest that might be mutually beneficial, to get some idea what their reactions to a dual-license arrangement might be. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, and look at other cases of dual-licensing and to see what benefits vs problems they've encountered (and don't forget perl as a possibly successful counter-example to claims that other dual-license arrangements have had their problems). All of that, and probably more, is needed to get a big enough picture to decide realistically what the benefits might be. Now just perhaps, that's been happening; and maybe the talk and hype has been in part to get more people thinking about it. So maybe when GPLv3 is finalized, there will be enough information to talk about this intelligently. Until then, while plenty of points can be raised, I don't think there's much use in staking out strong pro or con positions. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Dennis, Hear, hear. Ceri This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither license can be ripped off? We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such dual licensing would have a strong negative impact. (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses) This is the reason why I am against dual licensing. You cannot enforce this. 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
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea from the hallways of the same people that put Java in front of everything. ...And which was one of the worst ideas in the history of marketing. Example: what does Java, a programming language, have to do with the Java Desktop System, a derivate of the GNOME environment? Or, the Java Enterprise System. Is it written in Java? What does MiddleWare have to do with? Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people that are NOT joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that did NOT arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX operating system. I agree with you Dennis 100%. We are now discussing dual licensing Solaris because someone obviously believes that it is a good idea to go after the people who were foaming around their mouth on Slashdot about Sun being a deadbeat company with no vision, and how Solaris was Slowlaris and how Linux is superior and better and open and bla bla bla... And... GPLing Solaris will make those Linux fanboys suddenly switch to (Open)Solaris? Perhaps we should start begging and pleading with every Linux geek out there to please, please look at Solaris? This is really starting to get out of hand. Those people believe that GPL (v3) is the way to go because they don't know any better. And making Solaris GPL will help only as much as one publicity stunt may help some product; but it's short famed at best. The key is to educate the target audience and raise awareness, not try to go along with whatever the latest fashion fad is; GPLing Solaris is the wrong approach to raising awareness because it falls under the 15 minutes of fame category, and does not have a long term beneficial effect that is needed. Those people believe that Linux is great quite simply because they don't know any better. And I believe that no amount of GPL is going to make any significant impact on making OpenSolaris better. CDDL is just fine. In fact, just about any non-commercial license would probably be OK. Why is it that popular software gets worked on no matter what the license? Example: Apache. Hows come nobody complains about Apache not being GPL at large? Hey, I must ask, what is going on here? If the target audience *wanted* to do something for Solaris, they would have done so -- GPL or no. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon Valley OpenSolaris User Group, and that makes him a community member also!g Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris? We haven't seen a lot of decisions yet, but we are starting to see change inside Solaris Engineering, so things are starting to happen. What kind of change? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
UNIX admin wrote: Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon Valley OpenSolaris User Group, and that makes him a community member also!g Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris? http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/bios/bios-green.html -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for. Certainly. I'm grateful that OpenSolaris wasn't GPLed, and that it uses a less extreme license (CDDL). This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough for you? What if GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to what you're trying to say. Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their code barely passing the ./configure phase between one Linux distro and another? Is that the kind of expertise that Sun is hoping to attract? Did you happen to look at the lack of engineering and chaos coming from the people at the very heart of the Linux kernel? Those are the Linux elite. And they're poor coders. Also, in my belief, releasing their poorly designed (or not designed) code to the general public does not suddenly make them good coders. Everyone with half a mind can reverse engineer a piece of hardware to make it work; I've done it as a kid a lot. But that is not what a great coder makes, it's the insights, the documentation, the engineering, the test suite, and the talent to write clean, scalable, portable, fast code, that makes a coder great. And if anybody at Sun thinks that they will find that at Slashdot/Linux community at large, well, I guess somebody is in for a dissapointment. Not that open sourcing Solaris didn't already clearly show that. Linux fanboys that were foaming over at Slashdot are still not cranking out code using Solaris. Meanwhile, it's business as usual for Linus Torvalds Co. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
UNIX admin wrote: So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough for you? What if GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to what you're trying to say. Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their code barely passing the ./configure phase between one Linux distro and another? Is that the kind of expertise that Sun is hoping to attract? Did you happen to look at the lack of engineering and chaos coming from the people at the very heart of the Linux kernel? Those are the Linux elite. And they're poor coders. Also, in my belief, releasing their poorly designed (or not designed) code to the general public does not suddenly make them good coders. Good point - there is huge difference between the Linux way and the Solaris way. Solaris has built its reputation on engineering excellence and innovation. Open Solaris must preserve that philosophy if it is to retain it unique identity. Maybe - because we aren't lawyers - we should look more at the engineering philosophys behind the various license camps and ask whether they are appropriate for Open Solaris. Then at least we would be commenting on something we are qualified to. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
UNIX admin wrote On 02/01/07 05:08,: In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea from the hallways of the same people that put Java in front of everything. ...And which was one of the worst ideas in the history of marketing. I was on that team back then, and I don't see those guys involved in this discussion on this list right now. If you knew the context, you may be less critical, actually. But it's ok to disagree with any given marketing strategy, even though that one pre-dates OpenSolaris and has no place here at this point. Regarding marketing in general, though: We are an open community, and marketing is as welcome in this community as any coder is. The criticism of Sun marketing in this thread is unfortunate because the marketing people who /are/ involved are very much fans of OpenSolaris and advocate on behalf of the community all the time. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
*sigh* here we go with this again... *Dons asbestos suit in preparation for the ensuing flamewar* This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
+1 from here as well with one caveat. GIVE US libc_i18n.a... if Sun cares about open-source at all, they'll hire a guy to reimpliment the *one* piece of code preventing us from making a distro that doesn't explicitly depend on Sun's engineers. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested. I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours. The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa. We don't need licenses to split our community, it's already small enough in comparison to other ones. The GPLv3 alone would not be acceptable to me as the GPL isn't free enough for me. The CDDL allows BSD projects, Apple, and other entities to participate that could not practically do so otherwise. The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
For me the issue is to try to clarify what is the OpenSolaris community. If this community is simply a project free of Sun then I think that the addition of the GPLv3 can represent a good strategy of marketing towards the free world. But if the community is instead, an independent entity I don't see the necessity to change something.At the end,we can see two ways to reach same goal (to make to grow this community): through a license (GPL) or through the independence of this community (type foundation).I prefer to think the second option. Giacomo This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Shawn Walker wrote: I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested. I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours. The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa. I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical. We don't need licenses to split our community, it's already small enough in comparison to other ones. The GPLv3 alone would not be acceptable to me as the GPL isn't free enough for me. The CDDL allows BSD projects, Apple, and other entities to participate that could not practically do so otherwise. The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for. That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it. 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
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested. I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours. The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa. I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical. mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit. nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
I parsed dennis' gripes as being more an expression that instead of fixing the *real* problems in opensolaris, Sun's just license jumping... it's less work to relicense the code hope Stallman et. al endorse us than it is to fix the code contribution method, or rewrite (or otherwise open) libc_i18n.a the rest of closed_bins , or any other number of things wrong with the OpenSol project that can be fixed given the engineering, marketing legal muscle of SUNW, should they chose to do it. -John Agreed. My interpretation and experience has been the same. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:38:30PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch - but this is not a unilateral executive decision. No. I read clearly. This is a call for opinion. For what purpose? To what effect ? To influence the decision of Sun, and to influence the direction of GPLv3. license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL? Why are we now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of OpenSolaris? Because GPLv3 wasn't ready two years ago. There are far more important issues to ask in this project : (1) why do we have source that can not be built into a runnable OS ? (2) why are key components held back ? libc_i18n.a for example For legal encumberances... just as it has been from the beginning - and we've never said otherwise. I think Dennis has an important point though. Despite whatever legal encumbrances may exist, these are key problems for the project and license changes aren't going to solve them. If anything, I think most of the folks that would be willing to join the project if it was GPLv3 would likely turn not bother if they found out that some of the most important parts aren't available at all... So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough for you? What if GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to what you're trying to say. It won't do any good to win people over if they're missing key components. I personally don't think you can win them over without some of these key components. We have the opportunity to influence GPLv3 here. That is agreeably a good thing. And we are. Keep in mind there are many faces to Sun. There are lawyers, and there are engineers. Lawyers deal with licensing issues. Engineers are dealing with engineering issues. cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The whole closed bins issue though is a real dog. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Shawn Walker wrote: I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The whole closed bins issue though is a real dog. Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This would be a great contribution to the community. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Shawn Walker wrote: I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The whole closed bins issue though is a real dog. Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This would be a great contribution to the community. - Bart I thought that Jorg Schilling had done some work in that regard. I'll have to ask him. He fought many battles to get SchilliX 0.5.2 done. -- Dennis Clarke ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical. I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in. (Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation) That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it. Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither license can be ripped off? We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such dual licensing would have a strong negative impact. (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit. It only works when people actually give back code; if someone decides to fork to a GPLv3/OpenSolaris where all work is done without requiring changes given back under the CDDL, the OpenSolaris community would suffer immensely. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
Casper wrote: And it remains to be seen that there will be enormous amount of code under GPLv3. Only copyright owners can relicense. Some of the code is owned[1] by the FSF they will relicense; Linus already said that Linux will not be relicensed under GPLv3. True, although there is a lot of code out there that says it can be used under the GPLv2 or *later* versions. I think all talk about relicensing under GPLv3 is premature; I'm sure that the folks who believe that the community wants this don't realize that what the community wants is the Linux license (whatever it is) and that the community they are speaking of is not the Solaris community but a very vocal GPL or bust community. This I agree with. Personally, the whole reason I started contributing to the OpenSolaris project was because of the license. With the CDDL, projects like the various *BSDs and even Apple (OS X) can benefit. Personally, I think the folks on GPL island are just jealous of all the cool stuff we have. But that's just me... I believe that the OpenSolaris license must not been changed unless a majority of OpenSolaris community agrees with this; the list of OpenSolaris contributors should be used as voting members (and I'd be happy to let this vote/informal poll be confined to non-Sun contributors). Personally, I think the BSD communities have shown us exactly how giving and caring most GPL projects are. They take all the BSD code they want, and then run off and integrate it, and usually *never* give anything back under the original license. So while the GPL projects gain lots of benefit, the original BSD projects never receive any direct benefit. While the BSD license doesn't *require* reciprocation, I think most people would agree that it is certainly an appreciated gesture. I'm personally torn about whether or not it would be a good idea to dual-license under the GPLv3. I'm certainly against GPLv2. The CDDL addresses many issues that the GPLv2 does not and that the original MPL did not. I don't think I can say how I feel until the final version of the GPLv3 comes out. If it was inherently compatible with the CDDL, that would be nice. However, my gut feeling is that going GPL would only encourage the success of other GPL projects at the expense of the OpenSolaris project. So for now, I have to vote against it. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: can benefit. Personally, I think the folks on GPL island are just jealous of all the cool stuff we have. But that's just me... Nah, it's not just you who thinks that! -- 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
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it is: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc =EWEWEMNL011507EP28A Nothing is certain yet (to my knowledge), but I know of at least two CAB members who have serious reservations about this idea. When is the CAB scheduled to vote on the issue? ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
Bob Palowoda wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like it is: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc =EWEWEMNL011507EP28A Nothing is certain yet (to my knowledge), but I know of at least two CAB members who have serious reservations about this idea. When is the CAB scheduled to vote on the issue? What would they vote on? Lodging a complaint with people who spread rumors that are damaging to the community? Certainly it makes no sense to schedule a vote on adopting a license still being written, before you know what the final form will be and what it will obligate your users/distributors to do. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
Sorry I've been late to respond to this thread. I'm in Atlanta for Sun Tech Days and my ability to hop online has been limited. There's been a lot of chatter about OpenSolaris dual-licensing with CDDL and GPLv3. As Rich Green points out in his most recent blog entry (http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/all_the_news_that_s), it's not something we're going to think about until a) we see the next, and hopefully final, version of the license; and b) we discuss it with you and the CAB first. OpenSolaris is community code. We're not going to do any major changes without talking first with the community. (That's you. :-)) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
Nothing is certain yet (to my knowledge), but I know of at least two CAB members who have serious reservations about this idea. -- 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 Someone inside SUN seems to echo your statement: I love finding out what I'm doing by reading trade publications. According to eWeek, apparently we're going to license OpenSolaris under GPLv3. I have to say I was surprised because it just ain't so. This is primarily due to the fact that the terms of GPLv3 aren't final, thus making it impossible for us to commit to it. It would be like signing a contract with blanks to be filled in later. So, with all due respect to eWeek, I feel I have to go on record to say the article isn't correct. However, while I'm on the subject, let me repeat what I've been saying since we issued Java under GPLv2. We are in active discussions with the community regarding the detailed terms of GPLv3 and I'm very pleased with the current course and speed. As v3 is finalized, we'll work with the community to give very serious consideration to dual-licensing OpenSolaris (under CDDL and GPLv3). Until it is completed, we just can't make a commitment. And you wouldn't either. So, I'm afraid that on this particular topic, this is a no-news day. On the other hand, it was a big news day for Solaris. Check out these stories from ServerWatch and InfoWorld. (Posted at 11:53AM Jan 17, 2007 by Rich Green in Sun) http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/all_the_news_that_s (For the record, I particularly liked the last paragraph.) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
On 1/17/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I've been late to respond to this thread. I'm in Atlanta for Sun Tech Days and my ability to hop online has been limited. There's been a lot of chatter about OpenSolaris dual-licensing with CDDL and GPLv3. As Rich Green points out in his most recent blog entry (http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/all_the_news_that_s), it's not something we're going to think about until a) we see the next, and hopefully final, version of the license; and b) we discuss it with you and the CAB first. OpenSolaris is community code. We're not going to do any major changes without talking first with the community. (That's you. :-)) thank you, it was about time someone brought some sense into this argument, the only way to fight fud is with the truth, and is far more effective when timing is right and the words are said by the right person. nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
De Togni Giacomo wrote: My idea is that CDDL (or MPL) represents the best compromise between commercial and open world.It seems to resolve a lot of number of problems (for example piece of code with different license). If the major problem of OpenSolaris project is around acceptability by Open Community,I suggest to evolve it to a Foundation,OpenSolaris Foundation.I'm not sure,but the market should have necessity of a standard Unix system, quite different to Linux and GPL. Giacomo I'm divided. Psychology of the masses is a complex and hot topic. I do see benefits, in terms of market and opensource community acceptance. Read the press all the time: OpenSolaris is opensource, _but_ ... CDDL ... not GPL ... bla bla However, I fully agree with you, that OpenSolaris.org should somehow become an independent entity. But who will pay the bills, who will maintain, extend and supervise ON? Sponsors (foremost SUNW) and 3rd parties ... ? I recently read, that it might become easier for 3rd party organizations to donate money into the project, if it was an independent Foundation. I don't know, nor did I have more to say. -- Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3
Red Hat looked at creating a foundation for Fedora and found it wasn't worth the hassle - what benefits would it bring to the OpenSolaris community that it's not getting now? More legal bills and tax headaches? Is there enough money waiting to be donated to a non-profit foundation to have any left for real use once those bills and administrative expenses are paid? -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering De Togni Giacomo wrote: My idea is that CDDL (or MPL) represents the best compromise between commercial and open world.It seems to resolve a lot of number of problems (for example piece of code with different license). If the major problem of OpenSolaris project is around acceptability by Open Community,I suggest to evolve it to a Foundation,OpenSolaris Foundation.I'm not sure,but the market should have necessity of a standard Unix system, quite different to Linux and GPL. Giacomo This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
