Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. Lawyers are funny that way. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. This is a great idea, this way we could avoid double efforts. Lawyers are funny that way. no, that is fine. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Look at: http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005. Some drivers were held back originally at launch simply because I ran out of time. Some have been moved to usr/src; others are waiting for resources. We have continually and consistently said that we will open source all the code we legally can. That is exactly what we're doing. And that tells you why something is not available. Re: the suggestion for a 'pending review' list. We can not do that. We can only say either that something is coming when the only thing it's waiting on is engineering resources or that we have no plans to open source the associated code. Perhaps that's not good enough, but it's the best we can do. I will put it on my list to update the page listed above now that an open source version of e1000g is available. Bonnie Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. This is a great idea, this way we could avoid double efforts. Lawyers are funny that way. no, that is fine. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Thanks Bonnie! It would be nice to keep this page up-to-date. Another concern which might need your attention is that some important links on www.opensolaris.org could not be resolved. I'm talking about PSARC descriptions like this: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2006/704/ Would be nice to address it too. Is that also legal-related issue? On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 10:46 -0700, Bonnie Corwin wrote: Look at: http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005. Some drivers were held back originally at launch simply because I ran out of time. Some have been moved to usr/src; others are waiting for resources. We have continually and consistently said that we will open source all the code we legally can. That is exactly what we're doing. And that tells you why something is not available. Re: the suggestion for a 'pending review' list. We can not do that. We can only say either that something is coming when the only thing it's waiting on is engineering resources or that we have no plans to open source the associated code. Perhaps that's not good enough, but it's the best we can do. I will put it on my list to update the page listed above now that an open source version of e1000g is available. Bonnie Erast Benson wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). We may make a list which says pending review (so that an e1000g release does not surprise those working on cloning it) but in many cases we can't even tell why we can't open the source. This is a great idea, this way we could avoid double efforts. Lawyers are funny that way. no, that is fine. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
* Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-01 07:52]: Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). That would go a long way to silencing critics. If we *knew* that you actually couldn't release an item ever because it was completely out of SUN's hands so to speak; that might be a motivation for people to start working on something. At the moment, we have some vague notion that some things are out of our control but we don't know who the group of people the comprise our is, and we don't know if that means *forever*. I apologise if this information is somewhere obvious and I've missed it. Thankfully though, we finally *know* that libc_i18n is completely out of SUN's hands so to speak. It indeed sounds like a great opportunity for a community project. If a contract carries terms of confidentiality or non-disclosure, then the signatories can't tell a third party the specific details you seek. I suppose my question is: why not just assume that a non-SMI-led effort to provide an OSS replacement for each and every closed binary is needed, and then order them by interest, necessity, or some other priority? For each consolidation publishing closed binaries, you have a list. Start the projects to reduce the reliance or inclusion of encumbered components. As a non-lib example, for instance, it's been suggested that ON be scrubbed of its ksh88+smi scripts--replaced with tested ksh93-based versions. This means that distributions would be less affected by restrictions around ksh88+smi binary distribution. (That's a shell scripting project, which probably has the opportunity to also look at identifying common shell scripting style and practice for ON or other consolidations (if the hypothetical project team were interested).) Similar cases can be made for other encumbered components. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Shawn == Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shawn It would be helpful if there were a status list for the Shawn closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available Shawn (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), Shawn which have a chance of being available at some unknown date Shawn (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown Shawn date (in process). http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ Probably ought to be linked to from the General FAQ (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/)...? mike ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
* Mike Kupfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-01 11:05]: Shawn == Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shawn It would be helpful if there were a status list for the Shawn closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available Shawn (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), Shawn which have a chance of being available at some unknown date Shawn (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown Shawn date (in process). http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ Probably ought to be linked to from the General FAQ (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/)...? It already is, under the question What source code does the OpenSolaris project include?. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
sch == Stephen Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ Probably ought to be linked to from the General FAQ (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/)...? sch It already is, under the question What source code does the sch OpenSolaris project include?. Ah. I still had to look a couple times to find it. Maybe it's because I've got a cold. But perhaps we could make the link text longer than just list? mike ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On 2/1/07, Bonnie Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at: http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source This page has been available since shortly after the launch in June 2005. I had seen that page before, but I didn't remember how to get back to it. How exactly does one navigate to that page through the website? Shouldn't that be more prominent somewhere like on the front page with a note saying something like: The source for some items will likely remain unavailable. Please help the community by re-implementing these items: *link to no_source*. Maybe not too, but I couldn't figure out how to navigate to that page. Maybe I'm more blind than I already am. Some drivers were held back originally at launch simply because I ran out of time. Some have been moved to usr/src; others are waiting for resources. Understandable. We have continually and consistently said that we will open source all the code we legally can. That is exactly what we're doing. And that tells you why something is not available. But it doesn't really tell us why, it just tells us it isn't available. Re: the suggestion for a 'pending review' list. We can not do that. We can only say either that something is coming when the only thing it's waiting on is engineering resources or that we have no plans to open source the associated code. Perhaps that's not good enough, but it's the best we can do. If that's all you can do, then that's all you can do. If the page you pointed at is kept up to date to reflect as much as you can indicate, that will have to be good enough. Thanks for doing what you can though. Bonnie -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:40 am, Shawn Walker wrote: Since they are closed, you can't fix bugs in them, port them to other architectures, try to increase the performance of them, learn from them, etc. I'm not convinced all the closed_bins are somehow perfect and free of any bugs or performance enhancement opportunities :) If someone is that interested in the closed bins, they could re-write some of them for OpenSolaris and get rid of them completely. Yes, I believe our community needs to do that and get OpenSolaris to a point that it is 100% open and free. -- 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: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Thursday 01 February 2007 07:49 am, Shawn Walker wrote: I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't know *why* in some cases. It would be helpful if there were a status list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be available (due to 3rd party or something generic like that as reason), which have a chance of being available at some unknown date (under review), and which items will be available at some unknown date (in process). Why would you need to know *why*? They have gone through legal and have been reviewed numerous times, and they can not be released. The only thing anyone needs to know is the list of closed pieces that need to be re-written. You want to know why? It's because they're encumbered. That would go a long way to silencing critics. If we *knew* that you actually couldn't release an item ever because it was completely out of SUN's hands so to speak; that might be a motivation for people to start working on something. At the moment, we have some vague notion that some things are out of our control but we don't know who the group of people the comprise our is, and we don't know if that means *forever*. I disagree with this, in fact, why would critics care about closed sources that are out of Sun's control? Thankfully though, we finally *know* that libc_i18n is completely out of SUN's hands so to speak. It indeed sounds like a great opportunity for a community project. Yes, and it doesn't even matter why, all that matters is that we know it's un-usable, and we would have to re-write it. I think it would make a great project, and would support such an effort (support in the sense that I am for it, I am not offering to work on the project specific). -- 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: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue than any contributor agreement. The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many that needs to be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and enumerate every one of them that came to mind, but the CA was at the top of the list for me. Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG will somehow magically make the people that have second thoughts about this feel any better. The organization will likely be seen merely as a puppet of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!). I'm talking a real org here, such as a 501(3)(c). (Here in the US, that is the legal definition of a not-for-profit organization). It would be a legal entity all its own, with its own board, elections and constitution. Sounds familiar, right? But what it would do is form a concrete basis for, to use a metaphor, the separation of church and state. All legal dealings would be with the ORG, not SUNW. By extension, that means the community which is us. Being a ORG-proper is a lot more than just registering a .org domain and operating under it. Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing with Fedora and they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I know. So I don't see how this matters... But it does, because there is a CA in existence /today/... that /all/ non-SUNW people who want to contribute have to sign. My issue isn't the CA.. it's a good idea. Accountability is good. My issue is with who is administering the CA. For someone who gets the OpenSolaris code, makes a fix, and wants to put it back, they have to make a deal with Sun Microsystems Inc to do so... not the Community as I believe that's who it should be with. /dale ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
