Re: [osol-discuss] Getting software into OpenSolaris (was: Interface Stability... (was "process"))
On 7/27/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know what the SFW/CCD OpenSolaris roadmap will look like, but > > here's another thought somewhat related to the above: > > > > For people who are maintaining their own builds of Solaris freeware it > > seems that there might be a lot of advantages to adopting the JDS > > pkgbuild process. See: > > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier?entry=does_the_jds_build_environment > > I will check JDS once SchilliX includes X. > > Fetching the JDS sources was a nightmare (I hat to do approx. 300 mouse > clicks). > I asume that unpacking the sources will take a whole day ad the sources are > in pkgadd format. Hardly. I've worked with the JDS source downloads. You can just extract it to a ~/devel directory of your choice using tar, then setup CBE, and use pkgbuild to create a new package based off the directory it contained. Or, if you want, you can grab the sources out of: reloc/share/src/*/SOURCES along with all the patches and any accompanying man pages. It probablky wouldn't take more than 15 minutes or so to write a shell script to automate the process of extracting each file, and then copying or moving all the files out of the "SOURCES" directory to some place of your choice in a new structure of your own. You don't really have to use pkgadd to use the JDS source downloads at all. I didn't :) -- 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: Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver
On 7/27/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 08:43, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93. > > > > or we have pdksh, which is a lot closer to ksh88. > > The last time I did read something about pdksh, people were > disappointed about the compatibility. I don't remember why, > but this impression in my memory made me believe that pdksh > is no option. I think they were trying to point out that pdksh would make a good starting point or reference to begin implementing a replacement for ksh88, or to add the necessary compatability to ksh93. I don't think anyone was implying that pdksh could be used as a drop-in replacement (at least I don't think so). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Compiling errors with SunStudio
On 7/27/05, Markus Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems it is an issue having /usr/ucb in the PATH before /opt./SUNWspro/bin. > > When I change > PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/dt/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/usr/ucb:/usr/ccs/bin:/opt/SUNWspro/bin > to > PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/dt/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/opt/SUNWspro/bin:/usr/ucb:/usr/ccs/bin > > it works. The /usr/ucb/cc compiler *disables* C99 support and forces C89/K&R if I remember correctly, which would explain these errors. I know it silently passes some command line options without telling you to /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc. You could use truss to find out exactly what. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Some impressions (ksh related)
On 7/27/05, Helmar Wodtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's btw my impression that (Open)Solaris-people talk a lot about stability > and do forget to do a step forward. Solaris is not the best piece of > technology if I need a compressing file system: Linux ist better at that > point. I have the choice out of at least 5 there. On Solaris I even did not > find a way to mount a ext2fs partition... (well using nfs and mount it on > another machine was no problem.) ext2fs: http://www.sun.drydog.com/faq/9.html#9.24 -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Some impressions (ksh related)
On 7/27/05, Helmar Wodtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ext2fs: > > http://www.sun.drydog.com/faq/9.html#9.24 > > Well, that's like this access to some misconfigured Windows-Partitions on > Linux... It's read-only and I can access only one partition (question: also > only one if I have two disks?): Not quite. The docs are somewhat messed up, it's had several hands on it. According to the latest information: "Thanks to David Buxton for modifying ext2fs to mount partitions that are inside an extended partition." My main issue with it is that it doesn't appear to support amd64, just i386, and sparc32/64. Probably a simple matter to correct, but I haven't looked into it yet. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Some impressions (ksh related)
On 7/27/05, Helmar Wodtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > discussing about interfaces and standards is a good > > thing, standards are > > a good thing, the hack&slay > > mentality often shown in the so-called "open source > > community" is not. > > Try to understand it from a different view: the source is not available, so > there is no reason to keep compatiblity - it's impossible. See eg. > Ghostscript - it's a Postscript interpreter that's now very "mature". But it > still is not 100% compatible to the Adobe-Postscript interpreter - and even > if some people that made Ghostscript where consulted for PDF specifications, > Ghostscript still has some incompatiblities with PDF files. > > The only possible solutions are: > a) have original source code > b) have the people that coded the original. > > My personal opinion is that a) is the safer way. "a)" may be the safer way but is not always necessary. Your example of Postscript interpreter doesn't fit nearly as well because you're talking about (as far as I know) is an undcoumented proprietary file format, whereas ksh88 is a well-documented shell with all or some of the original authors still alive. Not only that, you assume that because the source is not available that questions cannot be asked of people that do have access to the source. The point everyone is trying to make is that it is possible to create a compatible equivalent if the "footwork" is done upfront, the fine details can be sorted out with people who were the authors (possibly) or those who have access the source. While they can't tell you what the source says exactly, they could answer specific behaviour questions. So, I disagree, it is not impossible, it is quite possible. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Some impressions (ksh related)
On 7/28/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > POSIX documentations (man pages) are written in a way that allows you > to implement all features of the program from only reading the apropriate > man page. I'm not certain how that point is relevant. All we know in this case is that ksh88 may or may not be documented well enough to reimplement compatability. Let's hope it is, and that the fine details can be sorted out with those that have source access. If it's really that important to anyone, someone will do it of that I'm certain. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was "open source process")
On 7/28/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kupfer wrote: > > > What about things like wifi drivers? I'm not an expert in the area, > > but > > I'm told that these drivers often contain a binary-only component (even > > in Linux). It's apparently the result of US (FCC) regulatory > > requirements on the wifi hardware. > > Then they aren't in OpenSolaris. Not being in our products > doesn't mean they can't be downloaded from somewhere else or > obtained as part of a proprietary distribution. I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* of hardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component. Not just wifi, but many others. Quite frankly, it should be more about the user and less about ivory tower academic principles. Taking the attitude of "open source only or the highway" sounds very noble, but it doesn't accomplish much. Many companies *will never* provide the necessary information to develop drivers for their hardware, whether because of legal obligations to others, *government restrictions*, or otherwise. I think many people are looking at the OpenSolaris project as one that is willing to support the user instead of taking the rather unhelpful attitude of "no binary drivers" that other operating system projects take. When it comes down to it, the user doesn't give a flying pig about whether a driver is binary only or not. They just want their hardware to work, and if binary only components is the only choice then it's a reasonable thing to accept to many of us. Those who don't like it can just not use that hardware, the rest of us would like our hardware to work out of the box :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was "open source process")
On 7/28/05, Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* of > > hardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component. > > Not just wifi, but many others. Quite frankly, it should be more about > > the user and less about ivory tower academic principles. Taking the > > attitude of "open source only or the highway" sounds very noble, but > > it doesn't accomplish much. Many companies *will never* provide the > > necessary information to develop drivers for their hardware, whether > > because of legal obligations to others, *government restrictions*, or > > otherwise. > > > > I think many people are looking at the OpenSolaris project as one that > > is willing to support the user instead of taking the rather unhelpful > > attitude of "no binary drivers" that other operating system projects > > take. When it comes down to it, the user doesn't give a flying pig > > about whether a driver is binary only or not. They just want their > > hardware to work, and if binary only components is the only choice > > then it's a reasonable thing to accept to many of us. Those who don't > > like it can just not use that hardware, the rest of us would like our > > hardware to work out of the box :) > > I fail to see where you disgree with Roy's statement, unless your > definition of "OpenSolaris" > is different Roy's in this context. > > On 7/28/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then they aren't in OpenSolaris. Not being in our products > > doesn't mean they can't be downloaded from somewhere else or > > obtained as part of a proprietary distribution. > > Since any close source binary can be put into any OpenSolaris-based > _distribution_ > (up to the owner to decide), such as Solaris, what exactly is not > "practical"? > > We simply can't claim the binary is _ours_ (the OpenSolaris community), > i.e. belongs to the OpenSolaris (in its strict meaning), even if it's > Sun's. > > That doesn't mean we cannot discuss it, test its integration with > OpenSolaris, I suppose. The point is if a driver exists that can be integrated, but has a required binary only component due to legal or other restrictions and that is the only way that hardware will work, then to me and many others it is perfectly acceptable. This binary only component could be a rom that has to be loaded into flash memory, special software to initialize a device, or perhaps a TV-Out enabler. I don't expect 3rd party binary-only-in-every-single-way drivers to be integrated into the official OpenSolaris project since they're owned by a third party. However, I do expect drivers that are open except for one component or set of components needed to initialize the hardware or otherwise provide legally restricted functionality to be given the option of being included. Wi-Fi drivers are one of many very good examples. At the very least, it must be very easy for a user to install binary drivers, and not have to worry about recompiling their kernel or any of the other dreck that certain unnamed open source projects make their users go through. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: How would "the ARC process" look at this discussion of KSH 88-vs-93?
On 7/28/05, John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [stop, stop, you are bringing out the verbose monster in me!] > You are advocating starting off the OpenSolaris community on a track that > immediately abandons this core value. I disagree (obviously), and instead > advocate keeping the core value, and leaving the question of creating a > new major branch to the point in time where we find something that - in > our community's considered opinion - can not be done under our current > constraints. > > Opening Pandora's box and intentionally throwing away one of Solaris's > key features seems extremely shortsighted, not to mention counterproductive. +1 -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: How would "the ARC process" look at this discussion of KSH 88-vs-93?
On 7/29/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't want to repeat the discussion we just had all over again. > I think my position is pretty clear from what I have written > already. Well, I don't agree with what you say. I do not and have not ever had an affiliation with SUN beyond being a contributor / customer. What I do know is that from my viewpoint ARC is a technical process. I really don't understand why you're so set against a technical review process. Something has been lost in translation apparently. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [osol-help] beginner questions -1 : "cannot create directories."
On 7/30/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i am guessing that home directory is in the other hard drive, and trhere > is a mount issue or stg, but i am kind of clueless now about what to do. > > > when i want to create a directory it says: "Failed to make directory > ".."; operation not applicable > > > i have two hard drives, in H1, i have windows and solaris, in H2 i have > a fat32 partition and Solaris partition. windows is also booting fine. > > > any clue? > > > > Solaris does not support fat 32 at this time. FAT32 is supported as PCFS. It doesn't support NTFS however. For example, I can mount my fat32 partition as: mount -F pcfs /dev/dsk/c0d0p2:1 /export/fat-g -- 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: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On 8/2/05, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my previous post, I asked a couple of what should be considered easy > questions regarding blastwave.org but instead of getting direct yes or no > answers, I was told to go through the entire web site. > > This kind of attitude happened a lot during the early days of Linux, but > nowadays, if anyone does that, it is not only considered insulting, but a > lable of moron will immediately attach. > > The Linux community (more particularly RedHat, now Fedora) has matured a lot. > There are of course quite a few inherent weaknesses of Linux, but many of > its intangible but very powerful strengths cannot be overlooked. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I saw nothing rude in the reply that was given to you. Not only that, what they said is true, your questions could be answered on the site or by the blastwave.org site maintainer(s). It is not unreasonable to expect a small amount of due diligence on the part of the person who seeks answers. "...does pkg-get handle dependency problems?" Clicking on the "Howto" link answers that question by example usage. "How to become a package maintainer?" On the front page there is a section titled "You Can Get Involved" which gives links to all kinds of things about how to become a package maintainer. "How about starting own repositories?" This is an advanced question you should be asking the blastwave maintainers directly. I think you're being unfair to the community by posting questions that already have answers on the front page of the site you were asking about in some cases, and not only that unfairly accusing others of having a bad attitude because they wouldn't supply you with answers that you could easily obtain on your own through proper channels. -- 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: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On 8/3/05, Magnus Forsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi swalker, > > > It should be possible to combine OpenPKG with apt-get > (apt4rpm) as well. > > Are you using apt4rpm with Solaris 10 and OpenPKG? > > Having some trouble getting it compiled. Are there any other alternatives? No, I haven't used it yet. Though I was told it should work out alright. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
On 8/3/05, Ferdinand O. Tempel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have a solution for the dilemma this community seems to be in. If it > were my call, I'd pick the packaging system which is very well documented, > performs well and has a lot of packages for it already. From where I'm > sitting that qualifies RPM and DPKG. When you throw in the requirement for > the proper tools and documentation to handle those packages (install, remove, > dependency resolving, etc) and to create them in the firstplace, I'd say > DPKG/APT/devscripts wins hands down. > > But maybe that's just because I like Debian :-) It must be, because my experience with creating Debian packages has been anything but pleasant. Creating Debian packages far more complex than writing (what can be) a relatively simple RPM .spec file and calling rpmbuild. It's possible dpkg is technically suerior, but RPM was far easier for me to learn and has been far easier to use. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Packaging and Building applications, standards for OpenSolaris
On 8/4/05, Magnus Forsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been playing with OpenPKG for a while. > > What I don't like about it: > - RPMs are of no use if you want to customize the build (all rpms install in > /openpkg/*) That's wrong. You have acess to the .src.rpm for customisations, and if you want to customise the install location all you have to do is rebuild the openpkg src.rpm with the install root you want. Packages should installer that new root. > - It lives in a self-contained area This is by design so that once you uninstall all OpenPKGs and OpenPKG itself your system is "clean" again. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop community.
On 8/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After doing extensive work on making Solaris of the x86/x64 variety more > mobile > and trying to make it the laptop of choice withing Sun (not there yet, but > in much better shape than some time ago), I'd like to propose the > > "OpenSolaris Laptop Community" +1 - Just got a laptop today ;) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop community.
On 8/10/05, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 09 August 2005 17:40, Shawn Walker wrote: > > +1 - Just got a laptop today ;) > > Install Solaris yet? Not yet, I'm a bit leary since I just got it and it's already taken some time to get it ready for work. I might do it this weekend or next though. It's just that I already know that a lot of the hardware I would want to work isn't supported (I didn't get to pick the unit), so other than giggles and grins I'm not sure of what benefit it would be to install :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop community.
On 8/11/05, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 11 August 2005 13:17, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 8/10/05, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 09 August 2005 17:40, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > +1 - Just got a laptop today ;) > > > > > > Install Solaris yet? > > > > Not yet, I'm a bit leary since I just got it and it's already taken > > some time to get it ready for work. I might do it this weekend or next > > though. It's just that I already know that a lot of the hardware I > > would want to work isn't supported (I didn't get to pick the unit), so > > other than giggles and grins I'm not sure of what benefit it would be > > to install :) > > Which laptop is it, and what devices are in it? It's a Dell Inspiron 9300. The main devices I care about are the Intel Pro Wireless 2200B Chipset (Centrino), SigmTel C-Major Audio, and the PCI Express Radeon Mobility X300 Video card. At last check, the wireless and video were unsupported, and the laptop is useless to me without Wireless (no point in buying a dongle for something that will eventually be solved). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Laptop community.
On 8/12/05, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WHy not a Ferrari or something better supported by SOlaris? As I have mentioned a few times, I didn't get to choose the unit. I was asked if I wanted a laptop, I said "yes", and that's what I got :) One does not "kick a gift horse in the mouth"... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop community.
On 8/12/05, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 11 August 2005 19:08, Rich Teer wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > It's a Dell Inspiron 9300. The main devices I care about are the Intel > > > Pro Wireless 2200B Chipset (Centrino), SigmTel C-Major Audio, and the > > > > OK, I'll bite. WHy not a Ferrari or something better supported by SOlaris? > > That's a fairly typical laptop, not sure what you mean, I think it might run > Solaris just fine. As I mentioned without working wireless, it's rather useless to me. Plus I know power management isn't where I need it to be to use it yet. I'd rather wait until things are ironed out or are near being done. There's too much needed for me to happily use it still... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Laptop community.
On 8/12/05, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > >As I mentioned without working wireless, it's rather useless to me. > > If a wireless is so critical, you can try an ethernet bridge, which connects > your ethernet port to a wireless router. The one I have is a Linksys > Wireless-G Game adapter (WGA54G). Bulky, but when it may be forever before > the right driver comes along (& so many Sun's engineers want you to try > Solaris on your notebook . . . ) I give! I give! While I can't promise I'll run it for more than an hour after installing, I'll at least install it to report the results. But, I want to wait until the next build is released. Since I planned on upgrading my main workstation anyway. I'm not buying any extra hardware though, so unless the IPRB works out of the box for a wired connection won't be able to get any useful information off it directly. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 3D acceleration
On 8/14/05, Serge Coche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone know that the standard Solaris 10 kernel does not support the direct > rendering (DRI). Also i recently saw a Opensolaris screenshot with > FlightGear, witch needs the DRI : right ? > > My questions are : > 1) How it is possible ? > 2) Can i build myself an Opensolaris kernel with a DRI entry ? At last check, DRI is not yet available for Solaris. It is being researched however. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can we start OpenSolaris PMS enhancement project ?
On 8/15/05, Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heya, > > > I don't know much about build environments in the RPM world, but don't > > development teams generally base their shared build environments on the > > rpmbuild tool and repositories of RPM spec files? > > I would imagine they share their stuff on just the SRPMs [1] - since > that by their nature contains the original source, extra sources, > various patches, and the spec file to build it all. > > > Glynn > > [1] At least if their development process isn't open - Fedora and > OpenSuSE [among others] may well now share their patches and a > repository of spec files. RedHat has shared their source rpms for a very long time now. Whatever was required to rebuild a package and get an equivalent binary for RedHat systems, whether updated or what originally shipped has been available for as long as I can remember. In my opinion, they've always been the most open with their distribution sources, and is one of the reasons why there are so many packages out there available for their distribtuions as well as distributions that have been created based off their work. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 8/19/05, Robert W. Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yet, I seem to have missed the forest for the trees I'm inhabiting. Indeed, > the > cross pollination at the operating system level makes an even stronger case > for > compatibility between the GPL and CDDL licenses. I don't follow the cross pollination between different projects argument. If anything, I see a lot of code from *BSDs or other GPL compatible license projects going to GPL projects and very little coming back. The GPL cross-pollination argument only holds water in the sense that GPL projects get to benefit from other people's code because the license is compatible but those projects cannot likewise benefit from GPL projects. If you ask me, it's very one-sided benefit. I think it's a lie to call it cross-pollination. There are always exceptions of course, but it's relatively rare from what I see. If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless to me. The GPL's inability to co-exist reasonably with commercial closed software or software under incompatible terms is the greatest and most unreasonable condition it suffers from. -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
On 8/19/05, Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an > > instant, and I suspect > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it > > would become useless > > > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, > > merely that the license be > > modified to be GPL compatible. > > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means > derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. But > the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be licensed under > the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means "replaceable with the > GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL compatible is one that > says the license can be discarded in favour of the GPL. > That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code become this way. Then the people that made the most original contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's the principle of the matter. -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 8/20/05, michael wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it really does not make any difference about all the fine points about if it > is GPL or CDDL. the bottom line is that opensource devlopers and users want > their software to be GPL. if it is not then these people will be turned off > by opensolaris. opensolaris would benefit greatly from having a GPL license. > i believe in fact that most people that are using opensolaris start to > customize their system to have as much gnu software as possible and be as > easy to build programs as it is under linux. gnu software under opensolaris > is like a 2rd thought as it shows up in /opt/sfw instead of /usr/local > under linux gnu software is the esssential ingredient that allows programming > tools to exist. > No, *some* users and developers want their software to be GPL. And just as those users will be turned off by OpenSolaris because it is not, there will be many that will be turned off if it becomes GPL. Additionally, your implication that OpenSolaris cannot use or benefit from GPL tools or programs is false. Not all GNU software shows up under /opt/sfw. Some shows up under /usr/sfw or other places. Some of that GNU software is integrated by default into the system, hardly as a "second thought". The great thing about OpenSolaris is that GNU is not an essential ingredient because SUN is already providing so much. It's a nice addition, but certainly not required. > in conclusion opensolaris is a fine OS as is Bsd and Linux but making > opensolaris GPL would make it more attractive for the opensource community. > It would make it more attractive those developers that actually care about the license, or are GPL zealots. The majority of users don't care what license a program is under. They just like good software. -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
On 8/22/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But what would that mean? Richard has said that "compatible" means > > > derivative works can be licensed under one of the two original licenses. > > > But the GPL says that code combined to produce a binary has to be > > > licensed under the GPL. Therefore, "GPL Compatible" actually means > > > "replaceable with the GPL". The only change that would make a license GPL > > > compatible is one that says the license can be discarded in favour of the > > > GPL. > > > > > > > That is exactly what one of my problems with becoming GPL compatible > > is. Because in many cases the code will just end up being relicensed > > GPL. I've seen several projects based off BSD code or other code > > become this way. Then the people that made the most original > > contributions can no longer benefit. It's a shame. I'm not saying the > > original contributors expected to receive contributions back, but it's > > the principle of the matter. > > But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible > and not making the GPL CDDL compatible? As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you have misunderstood me. -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
On 8/22/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But why then do you ask for making the CDDL GPL compatible > > > and not making the GPL CDDL compatible? > > > > As far as I remember, I have not asked for such a thing. I think you > > have misunderstood me. > > If you have a different intention, please describe it. Okay, since there seems to be a language barrier. I do not recall ever having asked to make the CDDL GPL compatible. In fact, from my viewpoint I've argued against it, because I think the GPL is the problem, not the CDDL. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Tech Lead
On 8/22/05, Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please give Stephen a big welcome! Welcome Stephen! Rah, Rah, Rah, sis boom bah, Rah, Rah, Rah! -- 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: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
On 8/22/05, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The near-total apathy that I have sensed from the overwhelming majority of > Sun's engineers toward OpenSolaris to me serves as a clear warning as to > whether Sun is really committed to opensource. Talk is cheap. & cheap talks > invite resentments. To induce interests, someone must show actions. > The eye of the beholder I suppose. I've seen anything but apathy. People seem to assume that no response = purposefully ignoring. Most of the SUN folks I see have a lot on their plates. Replying to a non-technical post takes far less time than involving one's self in replying to a technical one. > While the GPL'ed Linux kernel does not allow proprietary device drivers to be > included in the kernel itself, they can be easilly added as loadable modules. > A number of yum/apt repositories have been constructed to make loading these > modules painless. Several Linux distributions (e.g., Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, > etc.) even pre-load those proprietary drivers, thus erasing one of the main > advantages CDDL might have over the GPL. Except that newer versions of the kernel continue to place kernel APIs under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind. Not only that, the kernel maintainers are actively removing any interfaces that they perceive as only benefiting binary drivers. -- 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: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round 3)
On 8/22/05, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some users would say (and I'm *not* saying this), that the Linux zealots > will do whatever it takes to prevent someone from shipping binary only code > into the Linux environment. And I think they'd be right, some choice quotes from Linus Torvalds himself: http://lwn.net/1999/0211/a/lt-binary.html "I _want_ people to expect that interfaces change. I _want_ people to know that binary-only modules cannot be used from release to release. I want people to be really really REALLY aware of the fact that when they use a binary-only module, they tie their hands. " - Linus Torvalds "Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. " - Linus Torvalds The message I linked above is one of the reasons why I've never contributed and will probably never contribute to the Linux kernel. -- 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: Re: Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does thismean? (round
On 8/22/05, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > under a GPL only license, which prevents drivers that used to work > from continuing to work. Interfaces declared GPL are only useable by > GPL or compatible licensed modules. So, the benefit stands in my mind.> > > > The way nVidia solved this problem, as I understand it, is to divide the > module loading process into two steps, first their own API, which needs to be > recompiled for each kernel release, then the module itself. > Except that it doesn't really solve the problem, because their driver still frequently breaks with newer kernels. That loading interface only helps in the sense that it can be recompiled for different versions of the kernel so that the driver will work right, but if they haven't yet released an update-of-the-week-practically the driver may not work anymore. ATi has this issue as well. 2.6.10 -> 2.6.11 broke their driver, and so on. Each new version seems to wreak complete havoc on things. It makes no sense. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 8/23/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would it be too much to kindly ask the FSF to consider amending the > > GPL (in light of the forthcoming GPL V3) to allow compatibility with > > other open source licenses which may not be GPL derivatives, but are > > otherwise considered ethical ? > > > > The GNU GPL is meant as a free software license. Most, but not all, > > open source licenses are also free software licenses. > > > > We're going to make GPL 3 compatible with a wider range of other > > free software licenses, but the CDDL is too far away. It has > > substanmtial requirements not in the GPL. To weaken the GPL > > to the point where it would allow the imposition of such requirements > > would stretch it all out of shape. > > If you do not mention where you see the problems, it is hard to > discuss the problems. So please name the problems from your point of view. FSF's comments about CDDL: "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property"." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html And their usual word meaning game: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml Though you're right, I'd like to know what the "complex restrictions" are. Doesn't seem much more complex than the GPL to me... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Anyone seen their OpenSolaris T-Shirts?
On 8/23/05, Peter Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still waiting... :-( So am I, you're not alone :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Companion community development
On 8/23/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sorry this is opensolaris, and not the ON distrobution, sun doesn't > have the right to pick the "gate keeper" of a community without a > discussion on the subjec and possibly a vote, this seems very > underhanded. I value sun choices for my OS, but I have found sun's > choices for opensource software to be lacking, It is time to increase > choices and keep the community growing not for sun to steam roll the > community. > > I for one will not support a community of freeware that is created > without a full discussion and a vote. I don't see what a companion CD that ships with a commercial version of Solaris has to do with OpenSolaris. I also think you're being rather unnecessarily negative. It seems to me that this is a business related decision, not a community one... If this was about someone who would be a gatekeeper for someone that is part of the OpenSolaris project, well that's different, but it doesn't appear to be the case. -- 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: Bug fix process overly burdonsome ?
On 8/29/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't make it more simpler than this - OpenSolaris needs a third, > independent party here controlling and running the show - someone whom people > trust to be unbiased and not driven by commercial interests. (That excludes > Sun and Sun appointed people.) Other wise as I said the scale will be small - > And when I said "Sun's limited customers" I didn't mean it to say Sun is > small and has very less customers - I just wanted to point whatever 'x' that > is it is still limited compared to the BIG things OSS is capable of > producing. (See how many projects are supporting Linux - Did one of your > customers thinked/needed creating KDE, GNOME, ALSA? No. So they are still > limited to running big iron boxes to solve one specific problem.) > I'm sorry, but I think it's too early to say it "won't scale". Since the project isn't in full throttle yet, that's an educated guess at best. > If Sun continues to be at the forefront - take my word for it, most people > will not contribute as they will always suspect the most obvious thing. > Unless Sun encourages community to be on their own and not influence things > you will never see, for example, OpenSolaris full of hardware support , > running on all sorts of lovely embedded devices etc. > I think many of us want to give the project a chance, remember the main charter is not yet ratified. I also think it's rather pessimistic to see we'll never see more hardware support for OpenSolaris just because things don't work a particular way. > Answer this - What OpenSolaris gives you in addition to what Linux already > has? If you differentiated, then there needs to be a substantial difference. > I can't see how the license matters as most projects in OSS are happy with > GPL. You have to think on what basis you will be attracting people, why will > people feel motivated to contribute. Tell me 2 (solid && logical) reasons. > This seems like more veiled arguments for the GPL, and quite honestly I think most of us have had enough licensing arguments. The project has a license, and it is necessary to use this license for now. If you want to discuss licensing don't start it under the guise of being a process discussion thread, start a licensing thread. SUN has stated many times why the license needs to be something like the CDDL and why the GPL won't work. You talk about having an open community, yet it seems you're not open to different ways of doing the same things. It is way too early in the game to see if these processes will or will not work. Half the stuff you've brought up from what I remember has already been addressed by SUN in that they've promised to address those issues as soon as possible. For example, the "official" vs. "development" code trees you spoke of. I also question your ability to critique the process since I'm not aware of you having actually participated in it yet (such as code contributions). Of course, since all the processes aren't yet established it's too early to critique everything. Personally, I've made several code contributions already, and the process has been relatively painless. The amount of work required is not that that difficult on the part of the contributor from my experience. I've contributed to several open source projects over the years, and quite frankly SUN's isn't much different from others (code contribution process wise). It's just that their initial submission part is a bit more thorough in the analysis of a contribution. But I don't see anything wrong with that. -- 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: Re: Bug fix process overly burdonsome ?
On 8/29/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I should note here that I do not necessarily have a problem with CDDL > although I would prefer GPL for my personal purposes. It's just that I was > pointing towards the lost benefits from not going the GPL way and ways Sun > can counter it. > I didn't see any suggestion on ways they could counter possible perceived loss of benefits though, what I did see was a complaint about it being CDDL instead of GPL. The point is every license has a possible perceived loss of benefits. In SUN's case, a far greater less would occur if the GPL was chosen. The GPL is the one preventing CDDL code from being linked, not the CDDL. If the GPL were more flexible, the CDDL would not have been necessary possibly. -- 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: Re: Bug fix process overly burdonsome ?
On 8/29/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree it is early to criticise but that's also when you can easily address > the criticism. Regarding my ability to criticise the processes - I am > talking as a independent watcher rather than a contributor or a zealot and I > talked all of my things based on facts. I think I explained them in a fairly > easy understandable language. > If you're not an active participant, but merely an observer, it is difficult to value your observations as much since you haven't actually taken part in the processes. I would encourage you to actually take part in the processes to get a better understanding of them. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ldd of glxgears in nevada
On 9/1/05, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is glxgears in X11/demo? All others (bsd, linux) store it in X11/bin It really doesn't matter where it is since there is no set standard, and in this case I've been told that programs in "demo" directories mean "unsupported", i.e. if they work great, if not you get to keep both pieces :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Filing bugs generates no confirmantion email?
On 9/3/05, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just filed my first bug at bugs.opensolaris.com but received no > confirmation by the bug database via email. Is this normal? Yes. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Porting ReiserFS to Solaris?
On 9/3/05, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/4/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > some day i will remember to click reply all not just reply :-) > Blame the list admin. The lists here are configured the wrong way. > Mailman defaults to the option to reply to the list by default and > someone changed that to reply to the sender and keep the list in the The list is not configured the "wrong" way. It's configured a "different" way :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Porting ReiserFS to Solaris?
On 9/3/05, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both xfs and jfs are - like ufs - at the end of their development > line, ReiserFS isn't. And ReiserFS is becoming more and more the de > facto standard on Linux. I can't even fathom how you define ReiserFS becoming "de facto" in the Linux world. As far as the Enterprise Linux world, I almost always see ext3 as the "de facto" standard. I also don't see that changing in the near year or two. Maybe after that, but I have my doubts. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Porting ReiserFS to Solaris?
On 9/5/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/5/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes - Reiser3 , contrary to what people are saying is a good, stable FS > > which has it's benefits above others. > > Reiser4 seems to be getting stable but I don't know for certain. (Feature > > wise it' s more promising than any of the other existing file systems on > > Linux but not sure if any one immediately needs that kind of features.) > > i guess its the old story > > too little too late > > corrupt my data once, shame on you... > corrupt my data twice, shame on me. Same story here, though I could say the same about early versions of XFS for Linux. I can't recall a single case of data corruption that I could blame on ext2/ext3. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 9/6/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 06:56:02PM -0700, Rich Teer wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Robert W. Fuller wrote: > > > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > If opensolaris ever went GPL, I'd be gone in an instant, and I suspect > > > > others would as well. Because at that point, it would become useless > > > > > > Nobody was suggesting that Open Solaris go GPL, merely that the license be > > > modified to be GPL compatible. > > > > Personally, I think the GPL should be modified to be CDDL compatible. > > Most certainly not, if you don't like GPLed software, don't use it, it is as > simple as that, but trying to take over the code (ten, hundred ?) thousands of > free software authors have placed under the GPL is highly unethical. What is unethical is a matter of opinion. Some people consider the GPL unethical ;) -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, it is a well defined API for third party modules. and you are supposed > to follow the rules, or expect random breakage all over. This is the same on > any kernel out there (solaris, microsoft, whatever) and a rule driver writers > have to conform too. The problem is that it is only well defined for each release. The following release may suddenly decide to change the licesne of a "well-defined API" such that you can no longer use it. > This is not a licencing problem, but a discipline and conformance to API > problem. I suppose if driver writers are unhappy with some of the API, they > can voice their opinion on LKML, and request a modification of the module > visible API, the same as if someone was writing drivers for proprietary > kernels, could ask for an API modification. It's still somewhat a licensing problem... -- 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: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:13:20AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > Well, indeed, as windows has been known to change or modify the driver API > unilaterally, so what else is new ? And it is GPLed software, so you are free > to start from the old code base and do your own stuff. The difference is that drivers made for Windows almost always continue to work years later...even when using the supposedly "stable" or "well defined" driver API provided by Linux, most drives can't even compile right between Linux kernel versions. > > It's still somewhat a licensing problem... > > Well, yes, but a legitimate one, so a feature, and not a problem. That's a matter of opinion. To me it is a problem. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the debian mirror operators in can be sued by > Sun over the distribution of Debian GNU/OpenSolaris, and have to go to the > expense to go to the Sun chosen court. And the opposite is true for the author. Does not the author deserve the most since they are the ones that created the work? > This is, in my opinion, not freedom related, but debian is a volunteer > organisation, and can't afford to take such risks either for our > infrastructure, our individual developers, our mirror network, debian based > distributions, or even the end-user, so it is a problem for debian. And it isn't a risk for an author? -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPL & CDDL - incompatibitile., what does this mean? (round 3)
On 9/7/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep, indeed. But i guess the CDDL is also LGPL incompatible ? I don't see how, given that the LGPL is compatible to proprietary non-(open source/free)-software. From what I see the LGPL is compatible with just abou any license... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Porting iBurst drivers to OpenSolaris
On 9/9/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Presuming the driver code is GPL (SF.net is down for maintenance rt. now) you > cannot legally link GPL code to non-GPL. We appreciate your doom, gloom, etc. but unless you are a lawyer, please stop offering legal advice that you are not qualified to offer :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Porting iBurst drivers to OpenSolaris
On 9/9/05, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those in need might want to check out the CDDL section which says just what I > said in the OP. Plus some... ;) Of course IANAL and I am not offering an > advice or not passing an judgement which you must follow but it is painful > when people try to hide the obvious in the name of what not.. What seems obvious is not necessarily true, in fact what the FSF says is not necessarily legally true either. It is merely their interpetation and or opinion. People concerned about possible legal interpretations should seek their own legal counsel as laws vary wildly across country and state boundaries. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Dual Boot with XP
On 9/10/05, Will Hayworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, everyone, for reviving an old thread, but I'm trying to dual-boot > snv-16 (the first opensol release) with XP Pro, which I need for printing and > some other stuff. In /boot/grub/menu.lst, beneath the stuff added by > bootadm, I added my own entry: > > title Windows XP Professional > root (hd0,1) > chainloader +1 If XP is on the *first* partition, that should be (hd0,0)... >From the grub commandline, you should be able to type root (hd0, and see a list of partitions that GRUB can see. -- 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: Dual Boot with XP
On 9/11/05, Will Hayworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > XP is on the second partition, because Dell packages utilities on the first > partition (which is FAT). Running "root (hd0," to see the > available partitions gives me a list of about six or seven. For all but > three, they're unrecognized by GRUB. The three that are recognized are FAT, > UFS, and UFS, respectively, each of which we can account for: the Dell > utilities partition, the Solaris root filesystem, and the Solaris swap. > > So the NTFS partition, which I know is there, is "unrecognized" by GRUB. > Where do I go from here? GRUB doesn't needs to "recognize" the NTFS partition to use a chainloader. Just make sure you use the appropriate hd0,x -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] No CDE in OpenSolaris
On 9/11/05, Felix Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/12/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would be interested in wondering why not shift to > > GNOME/JDS since it seems where Sun is investing its > > time today. > Wasted time. > In europe/germany Gnome only plays a very tiny role. We're all KDE here :-) Wasted time? As long as *commercial* native KDE applications have to pay the "Trolltech Tax" GNOME is the only viable alternative for many commercial endeavors. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] No CDE in OpenSolaris
On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/11/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wasted time? As long as *commercial* native KDE applications have to > > pay the "Trolltech Tax" GNOME is the only viable alternative for many > > commercial endeavors. > > KDE does not publish or write any commercial software of any kind. Period. > > There are *no* fees to be paid for downloading, building or using KDE. > > The version of QT used in KDE is the GPL version of QT. As such, there > are no fees or licenses to be paid for using the version of QT used in > KDE. > > Please stop posting erroneous information. It is not erroneus information. For all practical purposes, since the very base toolkit of KDE is Qt, and you must license Qt from Trolltech for any major commercial applications (be serious, who releases major desktop commercial applications like Photoshop as GPL?) you have to pay what I and many others call the "Trolltech Tax" by licensing Qt so you don't have to GPL your software. GNOME does not require this. For small businesses that write commercial software and don't want to GPL it, you are *forced* to license Qt if you want to make a native KDE application. Hence terming it a "tax". -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] No CDE in OpenSolaris
On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For all practical purposes, since the > GNOME is not GPL V2? > > http://www.gnome.org/about/ Gtk, the main windowing toolkit of GNOME is LGPL. > > For small businesses that write commercial software and don't want to GPL > > it, you are *forced* to license Qt if you want to make a native KDE > > application. Hence terming it a "tax". > > This is simply not true. KDE is released under GPL V2, just as GNOME. > The QT version used by KDE is released under GPL V2, just as GNOME. I > don't believe i need to rehash the terms and conditions of the GPL. > > Please stop posting erroneous information. While parts of GNOME are released under the GPL, the main libraries that matter such as Gtk, are LGPL. Therefore it is not erroneous. http://www.gtk.org/faq/ "GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all developers, including those developing proprietary software, without any license fees or royalties." http://www.sun.com/software/star/gnome/faq/generalfaq.xml#q28 "Q: How is GNOME licensed? A: Most of GNOME is licensed in accordance with the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). " So again, GNOME does not require you to pay a "Tax" just to produce native non-GPL software. KDE does. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] No CDE in OpenSolaris
On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/12/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/11/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please stop posting erroneous information. > > > > While parts of GNOME are released under the GPL, the main libraries > > that matter such as Gtk, are LGPL. Therefore it is not erroneous. > > Yes it is. kdelibs, and a few other libraries in KDE are LGPL as well. > > libgtk is not GNOME. Just as kdelibs is not KDE. > > You are free to write your own commercial application linked against > libgtk, or kdelibs. But what good is a KDE app if it doesn't use Qt? Not much good, therefore... > > http://www.gtk.org/faq/ > > "GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the > > licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all > > developers, including those developing proprietary software, without > > any license fees or royalties." > > > > http://www.sun.com/software/star/gnome/faq/generalfaq.xml#q28 > > "Q: > > How is GNOME licensed? > > A: > > Most of GNOME is licensed in accordance with the GNU General Public > > License (GPL) and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). " > > > > So again, GNOME does not require you to pay a "Tax" just to produce > > native non-GPL software. KDE does. > > KDE does *not* require paying a license. Any statement to the contrary is > false. > QT used in KDE does *not* require paying a license. Any statement to > the contrary > is false. KDE does not require paying a license. However, the main toolkit of Qt *does* require a license if you want to write native *non-GPL* KDE applications (which to be considered native must use Qt). Therefore what I have stated is not incorrect. I don't understand why you continue to imply that commercial non-GPL software doesn't have to pay for a Qt license, when Trolltech themselves states so! > Licensing GNOME under any terms other than the GPL is not allowed. You apparently just ignored the FAQ answer that stated that *parts of GNOME* are licensed under the LGPL? I'm baffled as to why you keep insisting things that the project themselves says are not true! > Licensing KDE under any terms other than the GPL is not allowed. > > Please stop posting erroneous information. Please read what I wrote. For example, the UserLinux project chose GNOME over KDE for the very reasons I keep discussing: "Q: Why did UserLinux decide to not included Qt based programs in the standard version?" "...commercial license: upon paying a fee to Trolltech, developers can develop commercial and proprietary (non-Free) applications that link legally with the Qt library. In this sense, Qt is commercial software: if companies want to develop commercial and non-Free software on top of Qt, they can do so, but also contribute financially to the further development of Qt and the commercial success of Trolltech." Read the full answer to the above question here: http://www.userlinux.com/about/faq Basically, the point is to write a non-GPL native KDE application (which means you end up having to use Qt) you have to pay Trolltech for a license. Therefore writing most commercial applications requires paying licensing fees when developing for KDE. The same is not true when developing for GNOME. So, in summary: * If you want to write any non-GPL fully native application for KDE you must license Qt from Trolltech since to be a fully native KDE application you have to use Qt. I don't think anyone would support the notion that it is possible to write a "native" KDE application without using Qt. * You can write a fully native GNOME application without paying any licensing fees unlike KDE. -- 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: [osol-mktg] ALL of the 1st 5000 t-shirts have shipped]
On 9/14/05, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Get it yet? Please let me know when you do; I'm still waiting... I have mine, zip 66219 (a few days ago). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Getting rid of that "English/European" banner
On 9/14/05, Javier O. Augusto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander, > > Thank you for your extremely valuable tip. I tried the gconf thingie on > the URL you provided but didn't work out. One thing that did work was > adding: Try this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/message/26020 -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
> On Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 05:28PM, Daniel B. Price wrote: > Can I ask a dumb question: why are we calling this > "the muskoka > project"? > > Naming a mailing list filled with technical kernel > content after an obscure > lake in Canada seems maximally confusing to me, and > would seem to make > it harder for people googling for information to find > what they want. +1 I thought the same thing. The first thing I did when I saw the name "muskoka" being thrown around was to search for it on wikipedia. While it's "cute" and all, I relaly think that mailing lists should have a blindingly obvious title :) The suggested name of, "Solaris Kernel Mailing List"; seems rather appropriate. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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
[osol-discuss] Re: Proposal to create an OpenSolaris KDE project
> Rewriting Qt in C so it doesn't suffer from the lack > of a standard C++ ABI... > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- > - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System > em Engineering Let's not forget its "GPL" license either which means that I can't write CDDL software (logical since this is *OpenSolaris*) that uses it (unless I dual license which I refuse to do). Gtk's LGPL license is obviously better for business. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Refined OpenSolaris KDE proposal / Re: Proposal to
> Could you explain this more in detail? There is a > huge demand for a > Sun/Solaris supported version of KDE in Europe. Sun > is unwilling to > support KDE since YEARS, leading to the awkward > situation that we > either have an inhomogeneous desktop environment or > no longer buy > Sparc/Sunray machines and Solaris support contracts > and switch all > machines over to Linux instead (which means Sun would > loose another > customer with 1200 seats to Linux, as it happened in > Vienna last > year). Why can't Sun do it like all the Linux > distributors and have > one primary desktop as default and a secondary as > alternative? > > Bruno ..and I think they should continue to not spend any resources on it. Look at the Ubuntu project. They picked one desktop as the main focus, and stuck with it. The result is far better. From a business / licensing standpoint, GNOME is a better choice due to its usability and business-friendly license for Windowing libraries (Gtk). The Kubuntu project is community run, and as far as I'm aware, does not have anywhere near the amount of resources poured into it by Canonical that GNOME does. I also feel like GNOME represents a better hope for a CDE replacement than KDE. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Refined OpenSolaris KDE proposal / Re: Proposal to
> The worst problem is the forked effort that such a > thing causes. It's > hard enough getting projects to deliver plug-in GUI > bits for a single > GUI; doing it for multiple ones is just impossible. Indeed, this is a critical concern of mine as well. > Thus, the result will be haphazard integration. Some > things will work > better in GNOME. Others will work better in KDE. > Still others will > ail abjectly in one or the other. Neither > environment will work > entirely right, nor is there any obvious direction > that would cause us > to work towards that. As we all know, integration is becoming a big point of focus. The Ubuntu project has proven how good integration can dramatically contribute to the success of a platform. > I suspect that supplying the illusion of "choice" is > one that has > costs that aren't well accounted for. > > -- > James Carlson, Solaris Networking > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hear, hear! +1 -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Proposal to create an OpenSolaris KDE project
> > On 21-Jan-07, at 6:18 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > Let's not forget its "GPL" license either which > means that I can't > > write CDDL software (logical since this is > *OpenSolaris*) that uses > > it (unless I dual license which I refuse to do). > Gtk's LGPL license > > is obviously better for business. > > > > Rubbish. > > MySQL is GPL as well, yet it's still distributed with > Solaris. > Perhaps you propose we should remove that as well? > And GCC too, since > that's GPL. actually, the whole of /usr/sfw should > go... too much GPL... > > what a joke of an argument. > ___ It's no more a joke of an argument that SUN's original selection of GNOME due partially to licensing considerations. It's no more a joke of an argument than the flamewar that surrounded KDE before it went GPL. MySQL is not a desktop environment, it is a database server. For desktop users, a desktop environment is far more vital, logically then, that desktop environment should be under a license that *encourages* platform development. Windows and Mac OS X don't require you to pay a "*yearly* (and in IMO outrageously priced) library license" to develop commercial applications for their platforms. That makes your claims of rubbish moot at best. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Proposal to create an OpenSolaris KDE project
> This is an important issue for this project.I > think,it should be cleared (eventually with > trolltech) before start the project. > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/192/ > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/Licensing That helps. The last I checked, they had not made it clear that you could do that, and based on the terms of the GPL, I assumed I could not. It was also never clear whether works that used the Qt library under the QPL had to be distributed under the QPL. That would appear to not be the case (which is wonderful!!!). However, there are still a few problems, the Open Source Edition of Qt is *only* available under the GPL on Windows (so if you were developing a true cross-platform portable app, you would have to GPL it if you released it for Windows). However, I think I can live with that :) Trolltech states that (from your first link): "If the Open Source Edition was licensed purely under the GNU GPL, there would be problems. However, as long as Qt-based software is either open source or was developed under a commercial license agreement with Trolltech, we grant permission to compile, link and run those programs with the Open Source Edition. This is written down in our second open source software license, the Q Public License (QPL)." That solves my main issues with Qt, and makes me very happy. This was one of my big gripes about Qt for a long time. However, it still fails in two areas: 1) The encouragement of platform adoption which means no licensing fees (especially yearly) just to have the right to develop for a platform. Which means Qt is still not a great choice for a business platform. This one is important for desktop business choice, but not important to me since I doubt I will ever develop commercial applications on my own. 2) Doesn't solve the ABI problem others mentioned (which is really an industry (or GCC), and NOT Qt problem). This is somewhat bothersome, but something I already have to deal with for a C++ based project I work on... Thanks for posting this information, nonetheless. It look as if they have significantly updated their FAQs and licensing sections. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal to create an OpenSolaris KDE
> > De Togni Giacomo wrote: > > > This is an important issue for this project.I > > think,it should be cleared (eventually with > > trolltech) before start the project. > > > > > > > > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/192/ > > > > > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/Licensing > > > > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/118/ > > is the problematic > > one. > > > > Here is a list of some free apps with source code: > ttp://www.kde-apps.org > > ---Bob I'm not sure I see the relevancy Bob. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal to create an OpenSolaris
John Weekly wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > Bob Palowoda wrote: > >>> De Togni Giacomo wrote: > This is an important issue for this project.I > >>> think,it should be cleared (eventually with > >>> trolltech) before start the project. > > >>> > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/192/ > >>> > > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/Licensing > >>> > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/118/ > >>> is the problematic > >>> one. > >>> > >> > >> Here is a list of some free apps with source > code: > >> http://www.kde-apps.org > > > > Absolutely - and that's great for people who want > to use them. > > > > But for people who want to write their own > software, they are > > forced to choose between GPL'ing their code or > paying money to > > TrollTech. > > > Which is contradicted by: > http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/187/ > > Seems Trolltech is a little schizoid and may need to > update their FAQs a > bit. > Seems this is covered under CDDL as it says : > "Can I make software with the Qt Open Source Edition > and release it > under the GNU GPL, BSD, or Artistic license? > Yes. The GNU GPL, GPL-compatible licenses, or any > other approved open > source license will do." > > > > Thankfully, I'm not a lawyer so take it for what it's > worth to you. Actually, they say specifically that: "The FSF.org and OpenSource.org web sites list approved software licenses." Meaning any recognized open source license esentially. Since the CDDL is listed on both of the website they mention, I'm sure it's pretty safe ;) -Shawn 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: [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
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
I think the barriers to contribution are currently the biggest discouragement. Integration of even the smallest changes can take a very long time. Oh, and before I forget, the bug reporting system being out of sync with actual progress does not help at all. -Shawn Message was edited by: swalker This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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 > ust 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. Right, my problem with it though is code that isn't contributed directly to the OpenSolaris project, but is a derived work. Right now, if someone posts a modification to an existing CDDL'd source file somewhere, I'm guaranteed to be able to use it in any of my CDDL'd projects, etc. under the same terms. With a dual-license approach, someone could choose to only use and distribute modifications under their particular license of choice (of the ones that were available). As a result, a popular project could create a rift in the community where all of the work being done under the license they chose would be unusable by the other part of the community. > > 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. Dual-license to me only means that people get to pick their favorite license and work they do under it can't be used by other projects that don't pick the same one. Dual-licensing creates an artificial schism in my mind when it comes to software communities. Time and time again I've seen this with open source projects. Someone writes great code under a liberal license (BSD, etc.), then someone else takes it, makes it part of a GPL project, and then all future modifications become GPL thus eliminating any chance for the original project to incorporate any changes. There are cases where the contributors are kind enough to allow their modifications to be used under whatever license is desired, but I'm hesitant to rely on the goodwill of others to play fair. Some people may not see this as a problem since contributions to the official OpenSolaris project require a contribution agreement. They would argue that if enough of the community decided to choose one of the two licenses offered and chose to go do their own thing, it would be "natural selection" of sorts. It may be my fear of these things is irrational, and that I'm just another disillusioned software developer. Maybe tomorrow I will awake and the world will sing the praises of the one true license (whatever that may be) and this will all not matter...maybe. > -- > Stephen Harpster > Director, Open Source Software > Sun Microsystems, Inc. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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 > I sincerely doubt many people would consider Mozilla to have "solved it." I would venture to guess that most would agree that the triple-licensing for Mozilla has only resulted in headaches and not benefits. I certainly don't consider a triple or dual-license a solution. To me, a dual or triple license is simply an admission that the community couldn't come to agreement or didn't pick the right license to begin with. You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but if you can make most people happy... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
> It was as easy to predict more than a year ago as it > is today. In one of my posts I expressed the below > (Oct 11, 2005) for which I got flamed more than once > - > Quote> > Let Sun create a workable, scalable development model > around (Open)Solaris first. I pity the words > "request" "sponsor" "ask" above. It's going in the > same direction as OpenOffice.org - it's working but > only with Sun employees doing the major heavy > lifting, community presence is not that big and thus > the whole thing doesn't scale upto the point where it > should ideally... > > > I feel sad that more than a year later OpenSolaris > development is still closed, bug reports are still > vague at the best and for the people to contribute > they have to make sure they don't kill their urge and > enthusiasm before they can get a change or two in. Development is not completely closed, but it isn't nearly as open as many would like to see (myself included), that I will agree with. Bugs and integration are sore spots to be sure. > As a result, people don't feel like caring for > OpenSolaris, if they do, Sun makes sure they go away > by doing so much red taping, and the closed > development model (no design/implementation > discussions, no crisp, flaming hot discussions about > how some part of code sucks and how it could be made > to not suck etc.) means people do not whet their > appetite and gather virtually no interest in the > internals of OpenSolaris. > > Classic example of how not to run an open source > project. I agree with some of your post, but the rest is simply untrue. There are plenty of design and implementation discussions. There have been plenty of good and bad words exchanged as well about particular features, etc. There have been discussions about code that sucks and code that does not. You can see a lot of this when it comes to ZFS and the ksh93 integration as examples. Just look at the recent discussion on "serendipitous discovery" and /usr/gnu. If you think people aren't having passionate discussions about items related to OpenSolaris, I'm not sure how much attention you're paying. I'm sure not every discussion that could or should be happening here "in the open" is, but a lot of them are, and more of them are happening every day. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
> I did not see ksh93 discussion went anywhere. Or did
> it? Also I did not think that ZFS was designed in the
> open. So yeah, there are some pockets where there is
> some activity but as I said it is nowhere near where
> it should be if you are expecting concrete, free
> flowing contributions from people.
Yes, the ksh93 discussion did go somewhere. If you don't follow the community,
you shouldn't evaluate it.
>
> > Just look at the recent discussion on
> "serendipitous
> > discovery" and /usr/gnu. If you think people
> aren't
> > having passionate discussions about items related
> to
> > OpenSolaris, I'm not sure how much attention
> you're
> > paying.
> >
> I agree I don't follow each and every thing happening
> on OpenSolaris but I also think that I am fair in
> judging OpenSolaris based on the end results (How
> many significant community contributions).
If you're talking strictly about total size of code contributions, I would
agree, not enough has happened yet in my opinion.
> was mostly looking at it from a code changes and
> core design perspective - Is there a place where
> people can see the commits made to {Open}Solaris
> code in real-time and can comment/review those
> changes and then commiters can respond to it? If
> there is a place like this, I think it is a good
> start.
There is a place that lists the putback information, and people can comment on
it on the lists here. I don't believe there is a place to see live commits,
yet, but I could be wrong.
Putback logs are here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/onnv_putback_logs/
Sponsor request status is here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/request_sponsor/
-Shawn
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
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
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation
> All of those things are being worked on now. > > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > I think the barriers to contribution are currently > the biggest discouragement. Integration of even the > smallest changes can take a very long time. > > > > Oh, and before I forget, the bug reporting system > being out of sync with actual progress does not help > at all. > > > > -Shawn > > > > Message was edited by: > > swalker > > > > > > 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 > Forgive my pessimism then. Those things have been in a state of "being worked on" since the project was opened to the public. Really, I'm only disenchanted by them because of the licensing discussion. I don't see the point of changing licenses when core problems still exist almost two years later. I know some of these things are closer to being done, but, aaarrgghhh. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation
> Hello Shawn, > > Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 4:01:33 AM, you wrote: > > SW> I think the barriers to contribution are > currently the biggest > SW> discouragement. Integration of even the smallest > changes can take a very long time. > > Not that you get code integration in Linux world > instantaneously > especially when you're a new and not well known > member. Even people > from IBM have problems with integration into Linux > kernel - see > kprobes. > > I don't think we can afford to quickly integrate > everything just to > encourage. That's not what people like me are asking for. We're just asking for the amount of time it takes to integrate to be reasonably proportional to the size and scope of the change. There have been putbacks that were purely cosmetic in nature that still took weeks to integrate, as an example, when they should have taken days at most. > -- > Best regards, > Robert > > ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ttp://milek.blogspot.com -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation
> Shawn Walker wrote: > > I think the barriers to contribution are currently > the biggest discouragement. Integration of even the > smallest changes can take a very long time. > > > and how is this any different to getting fixes into > "the one true" Linux > kernel tar ball ? > ow many people actually have SCM commit access to > that ? > > Do people really expect to be granted SCM commit > access on to do their > very first fix integration ? > > > -- > Darren J Moffat > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > No, I don't think people expect SCM commit access. I do think they expect the time required to integrate to be reasonably proportional to the size and scope of the change. There have been putbacks that were purely cosmetic in nature that still took weeks to integrate, as an example. Large changes should take a long time, short changes a short time, and tiny changes a tiny amount of time. If we could reach that, that would go a long way towards sorting things out. Hence my earlier comment about it being unfair to expect SUN employees alone to take responsibility for these items (in their spare time no less from what I've been told). -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:37 pm, Artem > Kachitchkine wrote: > > Do the community contributors feel at home here? > > I don't think so. I see Sun's process as being very > intimidating. While many > of the other open source communities are bold, > they're somehow more > welcoming. I see OpenSolaris as being intimidating > for the average community > member. I'm sure one thing that intimidates some would be the contributor agreement. But, quite frankly, that's because most projects don't actually care about how legal they are. I suspect many projects could be ripped to shreds if proper IP ownership were actually enforced. So, while I think it intimidates people, I think it is absolutely necessary and needed to have one. The testing process is also difficult at best at the moment since you need to test for x86 and SPARC, and let's face it, most folks have an x86 box, not a SPARC box. > bugster is not open, the ARC cases have only been > available as of recent I > believe, and there is still no source code > management. > > Would you have the warm fuzzies in those conditions? > > -- > > Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group > Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care > about our company! I know the chances of Bugster ever being truly open are unlikely due to privacy concerns and legal considerations with SUN's Customer base (entirely valid I might add). Source code management, a streamlined integration process, and the final minimum necessary source pieces for someone to build their own distribution would be a huge boon in my view. -Shawn 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
[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
[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: 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 > Ah, but accepted by *whom*? It's obviously already accepted. The question is by how many and are those people important? Sorry, but at this point, there is absolutely no proof that a chance in license will bring this mysterious success you propose that it will. Look at GNU Hurd. I don't see people flocking to it just because it's GPL... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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
[osol-discuss] Re: 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 SmaaldersSolaris Kernel Performance > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts One of the problems with closed bins is that they may not be well documented enough to replace with exact matching behaviour. I will admit I have not personally studied in great detail the closed bins situation. My main grip is libc_i18n. The drivers being closed isn't a big deal to me as those are definitely replaceable... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
> From where I see it, the participation issue is due > to a process > hat 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." > /dale I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue than any contributor agreement. 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!). 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... -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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! Well considering it's licensed under the CDDL, I think we will see it. But since none of the CDDL licensed items they've used have even shipped yet, I think it's reasonable to take a wait-and-see approach with them. Besides, another one of the SUN folks posted earlier today about how valuable people at Apple were because of the knowledge they shared about DTrace. You will have no disagreement with me that what SUN has done is incredible and wonderful. They have definitely done far more than any other company has, in my personal opinion, for open source. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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! Which is why I later responded saying I wasn't sure if you were saying the *ONLY* thing that was important was acceptance or if you were saying that it was more important than licensing. Regardless of context, I personally have a problem with acceptance being important than almost anything else. Yes, there was a point, expressing my opinion, and we all know what that's worth. Blame it on me listening to a crying baby for the last few hours if you want, at the moment that particular comment put me in a foul mood. I just don't see acceptance being as important as you may or may not have implied. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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. I know that, which is why I said ORG and not .org. The point is that anything associated with SUN regardless of legal status or not will likely be construed as a mere puppet organization. As it is right now, some people already falsely accuse the existing governance, CAB, etc. as being nothing more than window dressing. > > 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 Great in theory, but no proof one way or the other. At least the existing way is safe legally speaking. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: 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. That isn't true as far as I know. Every contribution I make has to be made under the contributor agreement. Any time I have offered to make a contribution I've been reminded of or asked for my contributor agreement number. The Free Software Foundation also requires a contributor agreement, and so does the Apache foundation, and so do others. I have no idea why people are suddenly holding onto the idea that the contributor agreement is the problem when no clear indicator has proven that. > 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. I think you're mixing up licensing and project requirements. I have seen nothing anywhere on this site that says I can contribute code to the OpenSolaris project, regardless of license, without a contributor agreement. Please point me to where it says I can do this. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: e1000g opensourced!
> Kudos to Sun who made it possible! :-) > http://hg.genunix.org/onnv-gate.hg?cs=b2b402e6f340 > > -- > Erast Although puzzling enough it still has proprietary source code headers in the diffs. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation
> > > >>Ask in opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org for > details. The answer is > >>yes > >>except some closed binary parts which still await > approval from the > >>stupid lawyers. I'd expect Open Solaris being built > entirely from > >>source in a year > > > Actually, the lawyers are really quite intelligent. > They've all treated > me with the utmost respect, too, even though I'm not > a coder or a legal > expert. And they've done a nice job advising Sun > regarding all the > source the company is opening. > > Jim > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > I think too many people are too critical of legal counsel. Without legal counsel and advice OpenSolaris couldn't have happened! Even the "popular" open source licenses out there all relied on legal counsel for their creation. I for one applaud SUN's legal counsel for taking on a monumentally scary legal task where one bad decision could mean very angry stockholders. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
> > >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 > > > Casper > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > 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 :) -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
