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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
