Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Alan Coopersmith wrote On 01/31/07 16:45,: Jim Grisanzio wrote: Also, I just checked the Jive discussion forums. Since opening 20 months ago, the project's lists/forums have generated 10,114,589 total views, 7,218,833 unique visitors, 21,033 threads, and 81,874 messages. and how many thousand hoodie spams now? 8-) Oh, not many ... :) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation
You might want to get a English translation of the article on page 94 of January's issue of this German magazine: http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/2007/02 This will explain in part what is going wrong with Linux. Sun and the Community would be wise to understand the points made therein. There is another thing. IBM is hiring as many of the key contributors it can. RB On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 11:42 pm, Ian Collins wrote: I don't dispute that, the fact the Solaris can better Linux in many ways is a strong indicator as to the quality and number of developers at Sun. My point is not so much that more than one company contributes to core Linux, but many companies pay staff to work on Linux derived code, whether it be embedded or PC based. This is no different than Sun paying staff that works on OpenSolaris, and Sun has open sourced more code than any other single company. One of the more likely candidates for such a project might be 3Ware. Anyone interested in working on 3Ware drivers? I would. Let me see what I can find out, I've talked to them a couple times. It might be possible to get some hardware and help with specs as well. Do you have a particular chipset of theirs that interest you? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see that as being healthy for us in any way. Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the GPL? Is FSFThink the only acceptable mindset? If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for OpenSolaris. But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will. The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is it's not GPL; at least, I have not heard any rational arguments. The GPLv3 move seems to have been invented to fix that issue (if it needs fixing, we don't really need license zealots over here; I say we keep politics out of software and that, to me, means keeping the politics out of licensing also) I fear that GPLv3 will do nothing to solve that. I think the reactions will be predictable: Yeah, but Sun helped write GPLv3 so that nobody else could use it/so that it is less free Yeah, but OpenSolaris is under GPLv*3*; that's not the same as being under the GPL, that refers to GPLv*2*. They don't like us and they will continue not to like us. This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not need them to like us. I think the questions that need to be answered have already been asked but have yet to be answered: - What problem is being solved by dual licensing? - 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? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation
Alan DuBoff wrote: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 11:42 pm, Ian Collins wrote: I don't dispute that, the fact the Solaris can better Linux in many ways is a strong indicator as to the quality and number of developers at Sun. My point is not so much that more than one company contributes to core Linux, but many companies pay staff to work on Linux derived code, whether it be embedded or PC based. This is no different than Sun paying staff that works on OpenSolaris, and Sun has open sourced more code than any other single company. Maybe, but it's the perception - all it would take would be for one reasonably well known company to pick up on OpenSolaris to embed in their product and the perception of OpenSolaris would shift away form it being Sun only. At the moment, the almost automatic choice would be Linux. One of the more likely candidates for such a project might be 3Ware. Anyone interested in working on 3Ware drivers? I would. Let me see what I can find out, I've talked to them a couple times. It might be possible to get some hardware and help with specs as well. Do you have a particular chipset of theirs that interest you? To be honest, I haven't been through their stuff in too much detail because I haven't seen chip specs and they don't support Solaris! It's probably more of a case of which part is in demand. Cheers, Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Ian Collins wrote: 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. That's put me off as well, it adds cost (from the developer's perspective). It will all come down to quality. Most opensource projects have a number of developers with commit rights and at some point, community developers on OpenSolaris will have to be trusted. But in order to be trusted, they have to be able to contribute, which kind of looks like a nasty chicken and egg situation. That's why I favour robust unit tests where passing the tests gates the putback. I'm with you all the way there, but then even internally at Sun it doesn't work this way. We just _love_ review processes. Sometimes so much that it's daunting and discouraging to go through them The code integration process isn't very streamlined. We have no Google Mondrian to track development code from inception to integration and automatically pull for / remind of review needs. Every group uses slightly different ways of performing/requesting reviews or testing changes before allowing commit, and none of them automated. Yes, it'd be absolutely great to have something that neither incurs delays nor creates the feeling of not really wanted with anyone. OpenSolaris _is_ already making this better (from my point of view - inside the fence), but it's still quite a way to go. FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 01/31/07 16:44,: I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical. I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in. (Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation) That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it. Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither license can be ripped off? This is a key point I'd like to better understand. I know we need the final v3 to flush out the conversation for OpenSolaris, but do we need the final v3 to explore this specific issue generally? I've never understood the concept of able to choose your license via a dual licensing plan, but if both are required (can't rip one off) than developers would have to follow both and both would be compatible, right? Jim We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such dual licensing would have a strong negative impact. (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see that as being healthy for us in any way. Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the GPL? Is FSFThink the only acceptable mindset? I think we view this differently, but as long as we're considered free, I'm ok with that. If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for OpenSolaris. But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will. I'm not banking on it in any way, it's not even complete. The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is it's not GPL; at least, I have not heard any rational arguments. I think in some ways the reason some have issue with it is that it's Sun. Wouldn't matter if it was SCSL, or another Sun license, they would take issue with it. They don't like us and they will continue not to like us. I don't completely believe that 100%. This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not need them to like us. Sure, but it does us little good to be at odds with them, I don't see how that could help us. I think the questions that need to be answered have already been asked but have yet to be answered: - What problem is being solved by dual licensing? I believe so that software can co-exist with other licensed code. I know you'll argue that CDDL does this today, and at a cost to use in how some open source communities view it. They view it as Sun, and Sun is bad in their view. 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. - 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. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:21 am, Ian Collins wrote: Maybe, but it's the perception - all it would take would be for one reasonably well known company to pick up on OpenSolaris to embed in their product and the perception of OpenSolaris would shift away form it being Sun only. At the moment, the almost automatic choice would be Linux. Well, that is happening already. Intel announced their support for Solaris/OpenSolaris, and Intel is interested in open sourcing their drivers, and want to play well with Sun, as does Sun with Intel. IBM is also embracing it on their blade centers, and are a reseller of Solaris. So there are things happening in this regard. To be honest, I haven't been through their stuff in too much detail because I haven't seen chip specs and they don't support Solaris! It's probably more of a case of which part is in demand. I'll see what I can find out. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote On 01/31/07 16:47,: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:56 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote: But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? Well, it looks ok, but it can and does continue to change. As long as Sun can license the code to be the most compatible with other open source software, I could really care less what type of license you put on it. If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see that as being healthy for us in any way. If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for OpenSolaris. I think CDDL has clearly solved several issues for OpenSolaris, and it's offered new opportunities as well (just as the other MPL-style licenses offer their communities). But it will never be accepted by those who are so obviously and viscerally against it. I would be disappointed to learn that we may be considering v3 just so OpenSolaris would be better accepted because that's a defensive reaction. In that sense, Casper's right -- we don't need that. However, if we as a community are considering this so we could potentially have more options for development and this would help the community grow globally and there are no major drawbacks, than that's a much stronger position to take. Whatever we do, we should assert the positive, not react to the negative. Jim ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote On 01/31/07 17:46,: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see that as being healthy for us in any way. Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the GPL? Is FSFThink the only acceptable mindset? I think we view this differently, but as long as we're considered free, I'm ok with that. If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for OpenSolaris. But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will. I'm not banking on it in any way, it's not even complete. The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is it's not GPL; at least, I have not heard any rational arguments. I think in some ways the reason some have issue with it is that it's Sun. Wouldn't matter if it was SCSL, or another Sun license, they would take issue with it. They don't like us and they will continue not to like us. I don't completely believe that 100%. This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not need them to like us. Sure, but it does us little good to be at odds with them, I don't see how that could help us. I don't think these particular parties will ever agree on the philosophical issues of the licenses (not in their current form), but I do think we can earn all the credibility we need with just being successful in our own right. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the quality of the code and the viability of the community. We've already come a long way on these points. So, I guess I agree with bits of both of your points. :) I think the questions that need to be answered have already been asked but have yet to be answered: - What problem is being solved by dual licensing? I believe so that software can co-exist with other licensed code. I know you'll argue that CDDL does this today, and at a cost to use in how some open source communities view it. They view it as Sun, and Sun is bad in their view. 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. - 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. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation
Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck wrote On 01/31/07 17:06,: You might want to get a English translation of the article on page 94 of January's issue of this German magazine: http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/2007/02 This will explain in part what is going wrong with Linux. Sun and the Community would be wise to understand the points made therein. There is another thing. IBM is hiring as many of the key contributors it can. hey, thanks. I'll look for the English piece. I'm a little up to my ears learning Japanese at the moment to take on German as well. :) I hadn't heard the IBM bit, but I don't really follow the Linux community closely. Jim RB On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Alan DuBoff wrote: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 11:42 pm, Ian Collins wrote: I don't dispute that, the fact the Solaris can better Linux in many ways is a strong indicator as to the quality and number of developers at Sun. My point is not so much that more than one company contributes to core Linux, but many companies pay staff to work on Linux derived code, whether it be embedded or PC based. This is no different than Sun paying staff that works on OpenSolaris, and Sun has open sourced more code than any other single company. One of the more likely candidates for such a project might be 3Ware. Anyone interested in working on 3Ware drivers? I would. Let me see what I can find out, I've talked to them a couple times. It might be possible to get some hardware and help with specs as well. Do you have a particular chipset of theirs that interest you? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation
Ian Collins wrote On 01/31/07 15:42,: Jim Grisanzio wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Dennis's post on the GPLv3 thread: Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of people NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we rename this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community Source License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix something. got me thinking about why we don't have more community participation on OpenSolaris. Can you be more specific what you mean by community participation in this context? More of us getting stuck into the gaps that hinder the spread of OpenSolaris, working either as independent OpenSolaris developers or as an integral part of a Sun project team. I'd like to think that one day I can make a living as an OpenSolaris developer. So far, I'm getting the impression from these two threads today that what people mean is primarily code contributions and/or anything specific to working with the code. Which is fine, of course, but I think that represents just one way someone can contribute, and it also represents the smallest number of people in the community (since they are the most advanced). By the way, I feel that at this early stage we are not nearly diversified enough to really engage non-technical people, but I'd love for that to be the goal. There have been a few conversations about community participation, and aside from the obvious technical issues that Shawn, Dennis, and others have (thankfully) pointed out, I'm wondering if we ought to expand the conversation to be more inclusive of non-code activities. Please gag me for saying this, but do we need some sort of program to help this issue along? There was a brief discussion about that on this list a while back (December 18th.), but it didn't go anywhere. Oh, there have been several. Most only last a day or two with no real consensus reached. We probably need to identify the non-code activities (excluding financial!) that could help the project along. My only experience of opensource projects is as a developer, anyone else here made any non-code contributions to an opensource project? some non-technical stuff * writing docs (well, that one is pretty technical, sorry) * writing articles/news * evangelism (hate the term but it's obvious what it means) * translating content to other languages * starting and running user groups * presenting at conferences * teaching at universities (a bit technical, too) * writing books (ok, technical) * serving on governing boards * answering questions on list * participating on list and IRC * writing FAQs * blogging * taking pictures, creating artwork, etc We've been getting many such contributions and participation, but I'm not sure there's been any real consensus to call attention to this stuff. Jim Like Dennis, I've been here since the pilot, but unlike Dennis, my contribution has been negligible. My excuse is simply time, I have a hungry bank manager and kids to feed, so I don't have a lot of spare time for what amounts to 'hobby' coding. I'm sure there are many others out here in a similar position. Indeed there are. But all contributions should be honored. I wasn't referring to the small contribution, but to the desire and ability to do more. Unlike OpenSolaris, the Linux world has a many corporations paying for work on the kernel, drivers and applications. Did they have that 20 months into the project? I have no clue; I'm asking out of genuine ignorance. I don't know either, when did the likes of Red Hat enter the Linux arena? I think gcc has had corporate users contributing for a long time. On one had this shows the quality of the engineering team at Sun, but on the other it puts us at a disadvantage. I don't think the community involvement in OpenSolaris will grow until we have more companies willing to pay for work on the project. Having substantial corporate support for various development efforts would be interesting for sure (though I have no idea what that would look like in our case). Linux didn't grow from a company like we are. But your point is a good one and something to look forward to as we expand and non-Sun community members take leadership roles. The only time I was paid to work on a Linux project was for a driver. It's the peripheral (in both senses of the word) development that brings people in. An audio company had designed their own sound card and chose to run Linux in their audio server because it was free and they could get a driver written. OpenSolaris could fill that niche today, if we had a way of connecting potential users with the development community. I'd like nothing better than to combine my two decades of SunOs/Solaris and driver experience and make a real contribution to the project, but I simply can't afford to. I think you bring up a really good point. Sun pays me to do what I do, and so
Re: [osol-discuss] 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. However more open attitude within projects already open would be welcome. We, outside Sun, in 99% do not have an idea if someone is working on some new functionality or not. We do not have an idea, much less participate, in discussions about direction of a project, etc. There're exceptions, sure. I also understand that even if many things take action in open public there's still not much community involvement - buy I belive it will come with time. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] 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 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-) 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? This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a following to support it. Certainly time will show-all. I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3, but we're not in dire need anymore for drivers, not the top tier ones, we have pretty good support. What's funny is, do people actually use Becker's drivers anymore? I mean, who uses 3Com cards these days? I'm sure some Linux folks have 3Com cards laying around, but I don't see many 3Com cards these days that folks are buying new. As I said Casper, I am not partial to the license, I just want the best for the software to allow it to co-exist with other open source software. I don't want you to pit me up as a GPLv3 supporter, I would support it if it would help our cause. I'm fine with not using GPLv3, and quite honestly, I am fine with leaving things CDDL as they are as well. Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev tools
Peter Buckingham wrote: Hi All, Honeycomb is a unique archival storage product developed within Sun. It is built upon a clustered system and provides strong reliability guarantees for it's data storage (Write-Once, Read Many) and metadata. We (the development team) would like to start to provide information about the system. The intention is to make it significantly easier for people to start developing applications with Honeycomb in mind and to be able work with people on developing Solaris appliances. The intention is to initially put up the whitepaper and some documentation to be followed by the SDK and Honeycomb emulator. What about source code ? I think for this to be an OpenSolaris project I'd want to see source. OpenSolaris isn't a general Sun site for all stuff. Unless you are going to provide the source code for Honeycomb under an OSI approved license *and* the intent is this becomes part of OpenSolaris distributions then it is '-1' from me. This isn't the appropriate hosting site. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-) 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? This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a following to support it. Certainly time will show-all. Which is why now is probably the wrong time to make any decision about GPLv3. I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g., a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon. Not if this turns out to be the event in history that is later remembered as don't try to revise the GPL, we've tried that once and we failed. And for all the code moving to GPLv3, I can easily imagine that this too will cause a fork in the community, as all GPLv2 or later or FSF own copyright code can easily be forked to GPLv2 or bust licensing. Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags. I would say that the CDDL license creates a level playing field; if you can't abide by the rules in that field, then you cannot play. We're not here to make live easy for anyone, or hard for that matter. We can consider issues raised but we then need to carefully weigh all the pros and cons. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
The following is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit. Having had to deal with the import into Solaris of several open source projects before OpenSolaris started up and after it my opinions are based on that. I have spent a non trivial amount of time talking with Sun Legal about license/trademark/patent/export law and have I think an above average (for a developer) understanding of the issues. * Dual licensing is far to complex for developers to understand. It is hard enough for lawyers to understand for incomming unmodified source, never mind the problems with derived works and ongoing participation. * I see no value in GPLv3 over CDDL only downside, particularly if is a dual license. Especially given the conflict between CDDL being files based and GPL being project. More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? Note that I'm NOT anti GPL I has its place. I really like what CDDL offers and I think that it was and still is the correct choice for OpenSolaris. It allows this community to potentially fill an area that GPL licensed operating systems can not. The above is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 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 ? How 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: 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 actually think it makes it MUCH more complex. It was possible *before* OpenSolaris to write and legally ship a GPLv2 device driver for Solaris if you stuck to the DDI. This is really no different that writing a GPLv2 application that uses a closed source libc. It is still possible today. Today it is possible to do more with the CDDL because you can now share code with other drivers and be fully open source or just use individual files from them (and publish your changes if you make any) and keep other bits closed if you wish. I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understand, and a dual licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to understand for developers. Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a good solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which license it is under (just like the BSD license did). -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-) 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? This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a following to support it. Certainly time will show-all. Which is why now is probably the wrong time to make any decision about GPLv3. I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g., a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon. Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the biggest issue in porting Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ? There are huge technical issues as well- and they are (or should be!) much more interesting! -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Darren J Moffat wrote: I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understand, and a dual licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to understand for developers. Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a good solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which license it is under (just like the BSD license did). Sure. But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to bitch OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not. Remember XFree vs. Xorg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg? They all have neglected XFree ... In an ideal world, the _best_ solutions would win over the less beautiful ones. But we don't live in such a world. I'm not a licensing expert (nor did I want to be one). But I'm following a few news sites/formus/boards/discussions/irc. OpenSolaris' general acceptance would certainly increase dramatically. And therefore probably attract more contributors and of course globally feed the community. --Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Shawn Walker wrote: I think the barriers to contribution are currently the biggest discouragement. Integration of ev en 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 ? How 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 ? No, but there's a bit of a difference between no way to get commit access now and the current situation. But, in the proposed meritocracy, some putbacks would need to be done with handholding before letting people go it alone. Internally, we have a two stage commit cycle; and while this was created for a practical reason (reading blocks writing), it also serves as a last check. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the biggest issue in porting Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ? Depends on the type of driver; but in some cases this is true; if not, it would not have been possible to create the device driver porting kit. It required little work on the driver. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:56 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote: Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one Sorry. In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news, but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself. I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an assembly exception to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities. But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later. The main technical reason I can see for doing this is to allow (linux) drivers to be ported to opensolaris. I'd imagine that there are quite a few linux drivers which are GPLv2 or later, these could be ported to opensolaris if we added GPLv3 licensing. Other than that technical issue it may bring about *some* extra goodwill from the FSF zealots - IMO we shouldn't cater to extremists. The main problem I see with porting the (GPLv3) linux drivers to opensolaris is that the owners of that code probably won't want to dual-license it under the CDDL... this in turn creates pressure for a GPLv3 only fork of opensolaris: something which is definitely very bad for the opensolaris community. -Mark Isn't the major problem the fact that s ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Danek Duvall wrote: Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people say, positive or negative? I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of why are we doing this? and will result in a load of unfocused discussion, which is what I think we're seeing so far. I also think it would be helpful if there was an explanation of the legal consequences of such a dual-licensing approach, for example is the concern (expressed by several people) that one of the licenses could be ripped out well-founded or not? -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ Here, here! As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what does the OpenSolaris project hope to accomplish by changing the current license? [/b] As the common quote goes, Solaris isn't Linux, so why try to hide this wolf in a sheep's clothing? What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL projects? Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL OS...simple is often dumb. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCR Build 56 available
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Dennis Clarke wrote: Issues Resolved: BUG/RFE:6512841lpadmin performs poorly with large numbers of print queues. Files Changed: update:usr/src/cmd/print/scripts/lpadmin Is this the bug that Rich Teer was running into ? Nope; the bug I was bitten by was fixed in build 54. Hurrah! -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Martin Bochnig wrote: Darren J Moffat wrote: I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understand, and a dual licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to understand for developers. Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a good solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which license it is under (just like the BSD license did). Sure. But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to bitch OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not. and there in is the big issue, if you aren't a lawyer dual licensing is a nightmare to understand and it is so even if you are. I'm not a licensing expert (nor did I want to be one). But I'm following a few news sites/formus/boards/discussions/irc. OpenSolaris' general acceptance would certainly increase dramatically. And therefore probably attract more contributors and of course globally feed the community. and personally I don't think it will. Whats more I think if GPL is adopted as the sole license or under a dual license we may actually lose some very important community members and loose out on possible OEM or applicance systems built from OpenSolaris. Which one of us is correct ? We can't say but for me I don't think the risk of a GPL license is worth it since I can't see that it provides any value or any access to a useful amount of code if done in a dual license way. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Darren J Moffat wrote: 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 ? How 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 ? SCM access and the current workflow problems are almost entirely separate, please don't commingle them, it just leads to people believing they're actually the same problem. -- Rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3, I doubt you'll see *anyone* release drivers under GPLv3, since that would make them incompatible with the licenses for all open source OS'es - you couldn't put them in Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan DuBoff wrote: I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3, I doubt you'll see *anyone* release drivers under GPLv3, since that would make them incompatible with the licenses for all open source OS'es - you couldn't put them in Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris. I thought it was claimed that that was not the case. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Martin Bochnig wrote: Remember XFree vs. Xorg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg? They all have neglected XFree ... The fact this thread exists at all is proof that we've learned the #1 lesson of the Rise and Fall of XFree86 - changing your license by executive fiat without any prior notice or consultation with your community is deadly to open source projects. They could have survived the license issue if they'd been willing to talk to their community, but it just topped off a series of We're going to do what the few core people want, everyone else can help us or get out of our way decisions that convinced most everyone else to go away. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Darren J Moffat wrote: But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to bitch OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not. and there in is the big issue, if you aren't a lawyer dual licensing is a nightmare to understand and it is so even if you are. I'm not a licensing expert (nor did I want to be one). But I'm following a few news sites/formus/boards/discussions/irc. OpenSolaris' general acceptance would certainly increase dramatically. And therefore probably attract more contributors and of course globally feed the community. and personally I don't think it will. Whats more I think if GPL is adopted as the sole license or under a dual license we may actually lose some very important community members and loose out on possible OEM or applicance systems built from OpenSolaris. Oh. Aha ... But _may_ be others would potentially come? I may not have enough insight here, and therefore won't make further statements. Which one of us is correct ? We can't say but for me I don't think the risk of a GPL license is worth it since I can't see that it provides any value or any access to a useful amount of code if done in a dual license way. Okay, you brought a number of valid points. I only wanted a Pro-GPL_ver.? argument to be heard, before anyone engraves a final decision into stone (one never knows, who listens the list). --- A balanced approach has to be found. --- One that equally well satisfies the psychology of the mass market, and - at the same time, if somehow possible - fits the code contributor/developer 's requirements, as discussed earlier here. It _is_ difficult to say, where OpenSolaris'licensing policy should go. In order to bring OpenSolaris.org, SUNW - and the user base - most beneficial results -- Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wes Williams Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:26 AM To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3? More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ Here, here! As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what does the OpenSolaris project hope to accomplish by changing the current license? [/b] Linux and current GPL developers are less reluctant to adopt Open Solaris as a viable development platform because of the FUD behind the CDDL. As the common quote goes, Solaris isn't Linux, so why try to hide this wolf in a sheep's clothing? So Sun can attract more outside development What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL projects? Developers, Developers, Developers. Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL OS...simple is often dumb. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I have my doubts. I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge mess of the project. Really, I think if Sun wants to go GPLv3, it should be an explicit license change ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Alan Coopersmith wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: Remember XFree vs. Xorg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg? They all have neglected XFree ... The fact this thread exists at all is proof that we've learned the #1 lesson of the Rise and Fall of XFree86 - changing your license by XFree86: Yes. I actually don't really understand certain xf86core-decisions myself anymore (now, that I have read more about it). Hadn't it been slightly better for them to find some compromise - only a slight one in that case - than to stay stubborn and kill almost the whole project? executive fiat without any prior notice or consultation with your community is deadly to open source projects. They could have survived the license issue if they'd been willing to talk to their community, but it just topped off a series of We're going to do what the few core people want, everyone else can help us or get out of our way decisions that convinced most everyone else to go away. Yes, how true. I don't understand XFree86 in retrospect. -- Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
[...] and yes .. I'm frustrated that a whack of Linux community people never showed up. IBM people are not here. That the mail lists are full of Sun.COM email addresses and people internal with internal agenda's etc etc. A lot of things just seem behind closed doors still. Don't forget the Tadpole guy that _is_ here; I think I saw someone from Fujitsu, too. There are some (if not a lot) of people who've worked with and contributed to Linux here. And do you have access to the registration information, such that you _know_ there's nobody from IBM here? What about Apple porting DTrace (and according to some rumors, working on zfs) to MacOS X? What about the zfs to FreeBSD port? What about various drivers whose starting points have come from one or more of the *BSDs? What about increasing amount of external open source software available for Solaris, both via Sun and via your efforts? What about the two ATT ksh guys participating in the ksh93 integration project? What about the deal with Intel? Having said that, I do agree with some things you've said. Sun's marketing department needs a major overhaul; anyone that thinks that changing the name of products every couple of years or other such shell games (which although not marketing's fault, dual-licensing also is _unless_ clear benefits can be identified) is worse than useless, insofar as renaming for anything less than a total rewrite simply distracts and confuses, and done repeatedly, wastes credibility. As to whether there _would_be_ clear benefits to dual-licensing, I think that needs (a) wait to see exactly what GPLv3 would look like, (b) identify what those benefits might be and how they might work (keeping in mind that _just_ seeking acceptance is a defensive position at best) and how likely they are to work, (c) take into account any downside of a dual-license arrangement, and (d) reach out to not only the OpenSolaris community, but also the Linux and FSF folks (between which there may be a split between GPLv2 _only_ or GPLv2 _or_later_), the *BSD folks, Apple, Tadpole, Fujitsu, IBM, NCR (if they're still doing anything with Solaris), Dell (if they give a darn), and anyone else that has an interest that might be mutually beneficial, to get some idea what their reactions to a dual-license arrangement might be. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, and look at other cases of dual-licensing and to see what benefits vs problems they've encountered (and don't forget perl as a possibly successful counter-example to claims that other dual-license arrangements have had their problems). All of that, and probably more, is needed to get a big enough picture to decide realistically what the benefits might be. Now just perhaps, that's been happening; and maybe the talk and hype has been in part to get more people thinking about it. So maybe when GPLv3 is finalized, there will be enough information to talk about this intelligently. Until then, while plenty of points can be raised, I don't think there's much use in staking out strong pro or con positions. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
Dennis, Hear, hear. Ceri This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I have my doubts. I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge mess of the project. It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned, assembly exception could be provided, this is the tool Sun should use to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation issues. I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This would be a positive strategic step. I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will force it in distributions and because of GPLv2 or later clause in source files. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Glynn Foster wrote: 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. If incoming code is licensed as CDDL or GPLv3, then we would ask that you dual-license it CDDL/GPLv3. If incoming code is another license, then that license needs to be able to work with both CDDL and GPLv3. You don't want to disadvantage one over the other. If someone wants to take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license, then they need access to all the pieces. Likewise with taking OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 license. In terms of the current closed sources, if we, Sun, wrote it (install, storage, clustering), then eventually it will be opened under CDDL. And if we, the entire community, decide that dual-licensing is a good thing, we would also dual-license that. For closed 3rd party code (mainly device drivers), we provide an assembly exception to our GPLv3 code that allows it to be mixed. Essentially, we're saying that for code Sun wrote, we'll allow our GPLv3 code to combine with these proprietary drivers without a viral effect. Because we own the code we wrote, we can grant such exceptions. Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are licensed under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or you're stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other pieces of OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the kernel. You can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.) 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. I imagine there will still be quality gates to get code in. The constitution outlines that --- your average hacker just can't check code in willy nilly. Communities will dictate some criteria for checking code back and limiting check ins to qualified contributers. Dual-licensing would not change what the constitution says. Glynn -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster wrote: Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are licensed under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or you're stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other pieces of OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the kernel. You can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.) and this is really really bad for OpenSolaris. Note that my understanding is that this does NOT only apply to the kernel. If someone contributes some very cool code for a file in libc but only makes it available under GPLv3 and not CDDL can we integrate that into the OpenSolaris dual-licensed code base ? The very fact that we need to have discussions like this about how daul licensing could work and grant explicit exceptions means it is too complex. Keep the licensing simple and fair (in both directions!) and the developers will come. Dual licensing for me fails the simple and fails the fair in both directions. Maybe it is because I don't understand it but that probably shows it isn't simple enough. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. And now there are problems with the automounter. Sigh. It's not that we don't want to fix this. There are just a lot of technical issues. The best thing you can do is to help out. Go check out the Tools community and help! Folks there are working very hard, but more hands won't hurt. S Destika wrote: [b]Do not reply to me, I read the forums - my email address is invalid and I do feel bad I did nothing to fix it. [/b] 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... /Quote 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. 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. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On 31-Jan-07, at 8:51 AM, Erast Benson wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote: On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote: It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I have my doubts. I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge mess of the project. It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned, assembly exception could be provided, this is the tool Sun should use to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation issues. I meant more for contributors who want to pull in changes from another gpl3 project, for example... it won't be possible to package that with the CDDL fork of opensolaris, only the gpl3 fork I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This would be a positive strategic step. I absolutely agree. I'm pro-gpl3, just not pro dual license I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will force it in distributions and because of GPLv2 or later clause in source files. 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 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
[ I stand up and applaud Darren ] The following is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit. Having had to deal with the import into Solaris of several open source projects before OpenSolaris started up and after it my opinions are based on that. I have spent a non trivial amount of time talking with Sun Legal about license/trademark/patent/export law and have I think an above average (for a developer) understanding of the issues. * Dual licensing is far to complex for developers to understand. It is hard enough for lawyers to understand for incomming unmodified source, never mind the problems with derived works and ongoing participation. * I see no value in GPLv3 over CDDL only downside, particularly if is a dual license. Especially given the conflict between CDDL being files based and GPL being project. More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ? Note that I'm NOT anti GPL I has its place. I really like what CDDL offers and I think that it was and still is the correct choice for OpenSolaris. It allows this community to potentially fill an area that GPL licensed operating systems can not. The above is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCR Build 56 available
Ian Collins wrote: Derek Cicero wrote: Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/. When I checked it was loading fine. Are you still seeing this? Derek I'm getting 500 Error - Web Site is Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. So either the server is down, or this drop is extremely popular! Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- Derek Cicero Program Manager Solaris Kernel Group, Software Division ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us because we're CDDL only? Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may not buy us anything. Danek Duvall wrote: Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people say, positive or negative? I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of why are we doing this? and will result in a load of unfocused discussion, which is what I think we're seeing so far. Danek -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 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've skimmed most of this (huge!) thread with interest. Here, for the record, are my thoughts so far on this subject, with the proviso that any final debate should wait until GPLv3 is finished. However, let me be clear: I am against the idea of dual-licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3. The CDDL is not an impediment to others using the code as intended (Mac OSX's use of DTrace and ZFS is evidense of this), so that's not a reason. If GPLv3 fixes GPLv2's viral problem (i.e., if part of a project is GPLed, then the whole project must be GPLed)--that is, allows GPLv3'ed code to be combined on a file by file basis with non GPLv3'ed code--then I still don't see the need to adopt it. The CDDL already allows such combining, so what would be gained? As others have pointed out, if this is some misguided attempt to appease the GPL worshippers, I think it is doomed to failure. Most of the GPLists I've seen are staunch supporters of v2, and are unlikely to embrace v3. Given that, their attitudes towards OpenSolaris are unlikely to change. Further, what about people who have already contributed code to OpenSolaris? Yes, they signed a Contributor Agreement, but presumably they did so in good faith, and assumed that their code would not be retroactively dual-licensed. The CA does not state in as many words that that is a possibility. Does the assignment of dual-copyright entitle the assignee to change the licensing terms, especially if it goes against the wishes of the code's originator? IANAL but I doubt it. And even if does allow it legally, is it morally right? How many people have contributed code BECAUSE OpenSolaris was licensed under the CDDL and not GPL? We (rightfully) made a big hoo-haw about CDDL when Solaris was first opened. In some circles, dual licensing could be seen as an admission of CDDL's failure. Frankly, who cares what prominant pro-GPL advocates think? I think most of them don't even get the intracies of the license anyway; they equate open source with the GPL, and that is clearly wrong. The CDDL is OSI-approved, encourages code sharing, mandates that changes to CDDLed code are made available to the community, yet protects entities' IP rights by allowing closed (proprietory) code to be mixed with open code (at a file granularity). Dual licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3 is neither necessary, nor IMHO, desirable, and it would take a LOT of persuasion to convince me otherwise. Respectfully, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster writes: We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us because we're CDDL only? Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may not buy us anything. I think it also assumes that a substantial portion of this GPL army will be willing to sign agreements under our terms, placing their code under both licenses so that it actually benefits the Open Solaris community. If that doesn't happen, then the community forks into the GPLv3-haves and the CDDL-have-nots. That would likely be a bad thing. Why would a sensible GPL bigot want to do this? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Stephen Harpster wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. And now there are problems with the automounter. Sigh. It's not that we don't want to fix this. There are just a lot of technical issues. The best thing you can do is to help out. Go check out the Tools community and help! Folks there are working very hard, but more hands won't hurt. I'm sorry, but as I said in my reply to Darren, these are distinct problems. Of the things pointed out below, none of them relate to the SCM implementation, or work on tools that *we* can actually do. The bug system, the RTI system, and more Sun engineers talking on the opensolaris lists seem to be what are hinted toward, nothing that can be done in or by the Tools community can change any of those 3 things. -- Rich S Destika wrote: [b]Do not reply to me, I read the forums - my email address is invalid and I do feel bad I did nothing to fix it. [/b] 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... /Quote 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. 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. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. If some people at Sun have the intention to do this, they should send their arguments to allow a discussion. Several people did already explain the problems that arise from dual licensing. For this reason, there should be arguments that explain why it may be possible that such a dual licensing could also have benefits. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
Peter Buckingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: joint-copyright, yes... that's how the SCA (Sun Contributor Agreement) works. Note this isn't unusual. SGI asks anyone who makes changes to XFS on linux to assign the copyright to them. Europeans (at least definitely Germans) cannot assign copyrigths to someone else if you use the official translation Urheberrecht for Copyright. If you use the term Nutzungsrechte, things look different... Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster wrote: We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us because we're CDDL only? Do we really want contributions from GPL bigots (your words not mine!)? I think we need to step back and rehash why the CDDL was created and why OpenSolaris code that Sun released was put under CDDL in the first place rather than the GPLv2 or any other existing OSI license. There were reasons then why GPLv2 wasn't acceptable, exactly what about the proposed GPLv3 removes those concerns ? Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may not buy us anything. Even if the open source community (what ever that means, to me it is a rather meaningless term but lets run with it) accepts GPLv3 they may not accept a dual licensed GPLv3 / CDDL, part of that might be FUD or not being able to understand what dual licensing means. The result is still no gain. Do we actually have hard evidence that there are contributers or contributions of code that we are loosing out on because there is code under CDDL and if that was under some other license we could have them ? If so give details please. If not this is all speculation and assumption about the possible behaviour of people outside this community based on an as yet incomplete license, right ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Jim Grisanzio wrote: I think CDDL has clearly solved several issues for OpenSolaris, and it's offered new opportunities as well If GPLv3 had been available when OpenSolaris was being launched, and it would have provided for closed-bin, closed drivers and the like, I'm sure we would have gone with it instead of inventing CDDL. At this point (almost 2 years into the project), I don't see the value to OpenSolaris in dual-licensing. It does not appear that GPLv3 offers anything that CDDL doesn't already provide - that is, other than an opportunity to confuse and divide the community. There is a fundamental difference between the philosophies behind the FSF's GNU efforts and that of Sun's CDDL. This difference is bound to make the combination of the two licenses difficult: CDDL is aimed at allowing the aggregation of its components with others that have different licensing provisions. 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. As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that dual licensing is trying to solve? -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev tools
Darren J Moffat wrote: What about source code ? I think for this to be an OpenSolaris project I'd want to see source. OpenSolaris isn't a general Sun site for all stuff. I understand that opinion. It's pretty clear that if we get this approved we won't be putting up source code tomorrow, however we intend to open source Honeycomb it will just take some time. What we want to do is to help build things around Honeycomb and also pass on the knowledge from making Honeycomb into the appropriate OpenSolaris bits (eg the appliance community) Unless you are going to provide the source code for Honeycomb under an OSI approved license *and* the intent is this becomes part of OpenSolaris distributions then it is '-1' from me. This isn't the appropriate hosting site. This is coming, but it has not yet been decided. Let me give some reasons to be clearer about our intentions. 1. We want to let people know about Honeycomb because we think it's cool (and that it's real rather than just some marketing bs). 2. We want to build a developer community around using Honeycomb as archival storage. Initially this will be supplying binaries of the SDK/API and emulator. but with the intention to open them when we get the appropriate approval Personally I thought we'd have enough useful stuff for people to play with by providing information and by providing the SDK and emulator before we go ahead an open everything up (since this may well be a time consuming process). peter ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev tools
Peter Buckingham wrote: Darren J Moffat wrote: What about source code ? I think for this to be an OpenSolaris project I'd want to see source. OpenSolaris isn't a general Sun site for all stuff. I understand that opinion. It's pretty clear that if we get this approved we won't be putting up source code tomorrow, however we intend to open source Honeycomb it will just take some time. What we want to do is to help build things around Honeycomb and also pass on the knowledge from making Honeycomb into the appropriate OpenSolaris bits (eg the appliance community) A project on opensolaris.org has a source repository with it, if you have no source to put in the repository but you have open discussion to have then starting out in an existing community with the hope/intent to fire up a project later seems to me to be a good starting point. I support this being hosted/discussed under the Appliance community (but I'm not one of its leaders just an affiliate). -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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. http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ Now, how many people we see contributing to Blastwave, SchiliX, BeleniX, Nexenta and Martux all together? 5-15? If you still think we don't have problems with our community, think again please. But I believe if GPLv3 dual-licensing is done right, it will improve this situation drastically. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCR Build 56 available
Derek Cicero wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Derek Cicero wrote: Please find the links to SXCR Build 56 at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/. When I checked it was loading fine. Are you still seeing this? All is well now. Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Having read this thread in full, and the other one too, (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=23034tstart=0) I'm going to add my two cents: First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the Linux kernel cannot change. He cannot change the license from GPLv2 to anything else. The authors of the code retain copyright, have only released it under the GPLv2, and he does not have the manpower/ability to track down every single copyright holder and ask them to re-release their changes under another license. This is why Sun wants people to turn over the copyright for the code their submit, to avoid that problem in the future. Secondly, the problem you are trying to solve, I think, will not be solved by using a different license, but rather by taking the whole enchilada outside of Sun. First, go read: http://weblogs.java.net/blog/driscoll/archive/2005/07/were_not_going_1.html and pay close attention to all the comments. They express my position fairly well (more: http://weblogs.java.net/blog/driscoll/archive/2005/07/tainting_or_wer.html) Ok, so now that you get my drift, look again at the problem you're trying to solve, and ask yourself: How do we solve that problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that what Sun M... Inc. wants is greater Solaris adoption. At least that's the impression I get from the outside. Now, what makes people deploy an os. Let's see, it could be because they need it to run their application, or because they need it to run their applications very fast, or even because they need to to run their applications very stably (is that a word?), or yet because they need it to run their applications very fast and very stably. Now, I'm going to go out on another limb and make an assumption that people who now work on the Linux kernel didn't start out there. They were working on an application. They ran the application on Linux, and somehow, their application was not performing fast or stably enough (and maybe was not running at all), and so, feeling the itch, they took a deep breath, rolled up their sleeves, and headed to http://lxr.linux.no/source/ and http://www.linux.org/docs/lists.html and hooked into linux-kernel and linux-kernel-announce. Then they talked, and learned, and compiled, and worked hard to improve Linux to get their (get this) applications running/running better. You want people involved in Open Solaris? Make it super easy for people to get it, run their applications on it, hack on it, and contribute. Oh, and don't think they love you and will give you their copyright. Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. Sorry for being ranty. came here from http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/and_more_opensolaris_amp_gplv3 This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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 Which changelog ? Are you looking at all consolidations or just ON ? ON I'm told only makes up about 20% of Sun's Solaris product and probably even less of a distro like Nextana I suspect. I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not personally convinced that a license change is what will change that because I don't think the license is what that problem is. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us because we're CDDL only? Please remove GPL from the second sentence; then re-read it. Does it really make sense to attract *any* kind of bigot? Bigots are irrational; the way they express their irrational preferences and fears is only an expression of their general feeling of insecurity and inadequacy. The pick one particular focus and if you deflect that, they won't suddenly overcome their feelings; they'll just focus on the next thing. Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may not buy us anything. I'm afraid that's an example of group-think. There are many reasons to believe that this will not happen. The feelings in the Linux camp seem to run so high that I, for one, would not be surprised of a GPLv2-only fork of things interesting to Linux. I'd suggest that we focus on the things at hand; things that are most important to the community: commit access, more open source. We can't attract more developers if we don't finish our development processes first. The current suggestion is like running a french restaurant and complaining about the lack of customers; since some prospective customers have said they really like mexican food, you suggest adding mexican to the menu. But looking out of the window I see that there's no road, only a parking lot. Let's focus on fixing the road first. I see you're also suggesting GPLv3 with the assembly exception; this, to me, seems to be enough for a GPL bigot to refocus and say, yeah, that's just the CDDL under a different name. We didn't used to be so insecure at Sun; why has this changed? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] 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 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
It's a really good question. I don't know. I'm waiting to hear from legal... (And this is why we're having this conversation in the open!) Alan Burlison wrote: Danek Duvall wrote: Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people say, positive or negative? I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of why are we doing this? and will result in a load of unfocused discussion, which is what I think we're seeing so far. I also think it would be helpful if there was an explanation of the legal consequences of such a dual-licensing approach, for example is the concern (expressed by several people) that one of the licenses could be ripped out well-founded or not? -- Stephen Harpster Director, Open Source Software Sun Microsystems, Inc. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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. 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. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:38 +, 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 Which changelog ? Are you looking at all consolidations or just ON ? ON I'm told only makes up about 20% of Sun's Solaris product and probably even less of a distro like Nextana I suspect. No matter how you count, I don't think you will see significant numbers. My guess it will be less than 0.1% overall. But, would be nice to count real number. I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not personally convinced that a license change is what will change that because I don't think the license is what that problem is. Right. Re-licensing alone would be just a first step to resolve this problem. There are many other micro-steps we need to do. Like get rid off closed bins, most serious next step to do. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not asking how you would change v3. I'll let the FSF continue to work the way it's working. If you want to get involved with that, fine, but that's not what I'm asking here. As long as the GPLv3 still contains something like GPLv2 § 8, I would not call the GPLv3 a really free license. A big problem with GPLv2 is it's ambiguity. From an up-to-day OSS license, I expect an explicit permission to combine the so licensed code with any other code that is under any OSI approved license. Such an explicit permission (in fact more) is present in the CDDL but it is still missing in the GPLv3 (this was true the last time I did read a GPLv3 draft). If Sun is sure that OpenSolaris is a 100% Sun dominated project, this may not be a problem but if OpenSolaris is a true OSS project, then the license scheme should not prevent forking the code. While Sun may enforce dual licensing for code that is delivered to Sun, Sun cannot enforce this for code that has been contributed to a forked piece of code. Other people may wish to benefit from such a contribution to a fork. If such a contribution is GPL only, other entities (e.g. *BSD) are prevented from being able to use it. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] 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 ___ 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
No matter how you count, I don't think you will see significant numbers. My guess it will be less than 0.1% overall. But, would be nice to count real number. Sure, but the mechanisms are not in place to do this. And we don't expect anyone to have commit access for some time I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not personally convinced that a license change is what will change that because I don't think the license is what that problem is. Right. Re-licensing alone would be just a first step to resolve this problem. There are many other micro-steps we need to do. Like get rid off closed bins, most serious next step to do. Proof by assertion. Sorry, I am not convinced. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] 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. 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 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Rich Teer wrote: 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. Please, let's not drag patent issues into this as well. ;-) ;-) ;-) -- Alan Burlison -- ___ 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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. Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for OpenSolaris. To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). - Bryan -- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ___ 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster wrote: We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us because we're CDDL only? Like many others, I've held off replying to this thread, I'm neither a lawyer nor a speculator. Having said that, reading the above my reaction is do we realy want contributions from 'GPL bigots'? From my perspective, the term implies someone who cares more about the licence than the code. Huge effort was expended getting the CDDL ratified and the code released, it's too early to roll over and dual license. I think way too much time is wasted here in endless, repetitive debates about licenses and not enough on finding the real barriers to community contributed code. Ian ___ 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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Darren J Moffat wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points. I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-) 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? This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a following to support it. Certainly time will show-all. Which is why now is probably the wrong time to make any decision about GPLv3. I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g., a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon. Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the biggest issue in porting Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ? There are huge technical issues as well- and they are (or should be!) much more interesting! From the few I've studied, porting = rewrite! Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I did not see ksh93 discussion went anywhere. Or did it? Your looking at the wrong list. The ksh93 community has their own list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org is not the only list - opensolaris.org runs a hundred lists. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:55 -0800, Bryan Cantrill wrote: 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. Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for OpenSolaris. i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company, not a community. Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement. To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve. -- Erast ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Alan Burlison wrote: Please, let's not drag patent issues into this as well. ;-) ;-) ;-) I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that! :-) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Erast Benson wrote: To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve. Unlikely. Until there is case law to quote, it's very difficult for a lawyer to say anything definitive. -- Alan Burlison -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
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. http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL. This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity. Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it. Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the Linux kernel cannot change. He cannot change the license from GPLv2 to anything else. The authors of the code retain copyright, have only released it under the GPLv2, and he does not have the manpower/ability to track down every single copyright holder and ask them to re-release their changes under another license. This is why Sun wants people to turn over the copyright for the code their submit, to avoid that problem in the future. Exactly, and it is very important that we have the assurance of a copyright assignment for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation requires one if you contribute to GCC, etc. You want people involved in Open Solaris? Make it super easy for people to get it, run their applications on it, hack on it, and contribute. Oh, and don't think they love you and will give you their copyright. Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons. Sorry for being ranty. came here from http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/and_more_opensolari s_amp_gplv3 It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and contribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. The copyright attribution is a necessary and needful part of any project. Without it, a project is only opening itself up to the very same problems that the Linux community is facing now, and you need proper record keeping when it comes time to deal with legal inquiries anyway. -Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev tools
Peter Buckingham wrote: This is coming, but it has not yet been decided. Let me give some reasons to be clearer about our intentions. 1. We want to let people know about Honeycomb because we think it's cool (and that it's real rather than just some marketing bs). This can be done via the 'appliances' community, or blog entries. 2. We want to build a developer community around using Honeycomb as archival storage. Initially this will be supplying binaries of the SDK/API and emulator. but with the intention to open them when we get the appropriate approval This can also be done within the 'appliances' community if it comes to the point where you do actually have source to open up, then you can request a project be opened then. In my view, an OpenSolaris Project is a place centred around *community open development of the project's source code*. I think the Appliances community is a perfectly suited place for your current discussion of Honeycomb... cheers, steve -- stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin Schafstall-like fake?
Just got this email... -- Forwarded message -- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jan 31, 2007 8:01 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table - Original message - Received: by 10.66.221.6 with SMTP id t6mr1425644ugg.1170270097449; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.16.16 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:01:37 +0100 From: Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 1/31/07, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. - Message truncated - Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for OpenSolaris. i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company, not a community. I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding: companies are not single-minded borgs -- they are merely organizations of individuals who happen to be aligned around a loose set of ideas or goals. That's true of Sun, it's true of Apple, and it's true of most other innovative companies out there. (And the trend is for companies to allow for more transparency into the individuals that comprise them, not less.) And speaking for DTrace, there are significant parts of the DTrace implementation for which the only understanding outside of Sun lies with engineers at Apple. Sometimes these individuals participate in the DTrace community under Apple's banner (e.g., posting from an apple.com address) and sometimes they don't. To us, it doesn't matter -- we are joined by common values and ideas that transcend corporate affiliations. Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement. But the question is: would they? It's not clear to me that they would, but that's a question that Apple's legal team would need to answer (for it was they who reviewed and approved of the CDDL). - Bryan -- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Please forgive the newbiness. Can Open Solaris be built entirely from source? Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ - Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Erast Benson wrote: To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we _don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable). this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve. Unlikely. Until there is case law to quote, it's very difficult for a lawyer to say anything definitive. In fact, the suggestion of non-removable dual licensing does not work; it means there's a single license but you only need to abide by half the terms (and both bits need to stipulate that the entire license is to be retained). That's not what dual licensing is... Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Stephen Harpster wrote: Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one Sorry. In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news, but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself. I think that we (we being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an assembly exception to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities. But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later. The biggest upside here doesn't appear to be an upside for us at all, but for Sun. A move such as this would generate a lot of good press for you, I'm sure, but it doesn't do much for us, and as such is just marketing crud. What would this bring to us as benefit? a world of possibilities... like what? It would, possibly, ease the integration of GPLv3 licensed software, of which currently none exists, and several large bodies of GPLv2 software appear to have stated their lack of desire to move to the new license (or a new license in general). So as things stand, we're discussing using a license that doesn't exist, to open up a word of possibilities that as best as I can tell also don't yet exist. Discussion of the possible downsides is common in other parts of these threads, but I'm not sure either pro or con can be clear until we actually see what the license ends up being, and can thus give *far* more accurate thought to what this would bring us, as compared to what it would take away. -- Rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Information and dev tools
Stephen Lau wrote: I think the Appliances community is a perfectly suited place for your current discussion of Honeycomb... I've already made a proposal there. Just trying to make sure that everyone feels I'm addressing their concerns ;-) peter ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
--- Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly, and it is very important that we have the assurance of a copyright assignment for the same reasons the Free Software Foundation requires one if you contribute to GCC, etc. It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and contribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration process respectively. The copyright attribution is a necessary and needful part of any project. Without it, a project is only opening itself up to the very same problems that the Linux community is facing now, and you need proper record keeping when it comes time to deal with legal inquiries anyway. Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want to release their copyright (something about getting paid). Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
Hey, Josh Hurst wrote: On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Give us a break, OpenSolaris is only barely out the door - there's still a *huge* amount of work to do before things can head in the right direction. It takes an infinitely large time and work to bootstrap a community - for most cases it's not an overnight thing. Fortunately OpenSolaris has some fantastic technology, and best of all some amazingly talented people to tempt many a developer and general contributor towards the project. There may never be a community phenomenon quite like Linux in terms of numbers and the creation of a grass roots environment. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?
Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying we are not growing fast enough? You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed and I believe that our growing speed is just OK. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
--- Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/31/07, Christopher Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please forgive the newbiness. Can Open Solaris be built entirely from source? 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 So really no then. Thanks though. How hard would it be to reimplement the binary parts? Are there patent issues? ps: I'll not delve in that other mailing list, I'm scared to go there. (not being funny either) Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.christophermahan.com/ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Erast Benson wrote: 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. But if we get rid of the Contributor Agreement we lose the mechanism that lets us change from CDDL to dual-licensed - you can't have it both ways! (And even the FSF requires similar agreement to contribute to GNU software, so I don't see why it should be a major issue.) -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?]
Erast Benson wrote: Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the -- major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for OpenSolaris. i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company, not a community. You miss the point, someone (anyone, individual, company, whatever) has seen the value in a piece of open source Solaris code and taken it on board. They will modify it, expose it to a wider audience, extol its virtues and hopefully even improve it and we will see the benefit. Isn't that what this 'community' wants? Ian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation
On 1/31/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Josh Hurst wrote: On 1/31/07, Stephen Harpster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm the first to agree that the transition to Mercurial, getting the source outside Sun's firewall, is going slower than I want. How do you want to stimulate the growth of the Opensolaris community? That may be more important right now. Opensolaris.org remains a small fraction, if not the smallest, out of the Open Unix cake composed from NetBSD, FreeBSD, DragonFly, OpenBSD, Darwin, Linux and Opensolaris and I don't see it GROWING. Just the same people all the time. The request sponsor list doesn't grow much either in terms of new contributors (just the part with the unsponsored items grows). Just the same people all the time. Give us a break, OpenSolaris is only barely out the door - there's still a *huge* amount of work to do before things can head in the right direction. It takes an infinitely large time and work to bootstrap a community - for most cases it's not an overnight thing. Fortunately OpenSolaris has some fantastic technology, and best of all some amazingly talented people to tempt many a developer and general contributor towards the project. There may never be a community phenomenon quite like Linux in terms of numbers and the creation of a grass roots environment. You could make it a community phenomenon quite like Linux if you would allow people to participate without waiting months to see the submitted patches integrated. It sucks when a five line patch for a very dumb bug is queued and no one cares. It sucks when projects like the ksh93 integration need a year, which is 12 months, 367 days or just a painful long time to integrate. Do you really think this encourages contributors? Come and wait a year to see your code rejected is the current official slogan of Opensolaris.org Which kind of contributor treatment is that? Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
