Karen - I didn't mean to inhibit discussion generally or you at all! I thought I was _supporting_ you: that it's a relationship issue between Sun and open-source, with the perceived risk that open-source means unrestricted derivation, as you put it. I do think of Sun in terms of the people I knew there, with caveats for the organization as a whole, so I guess I'm inclined to believe how we treat them matters - as I'm sure you would as well. I'm very sorry - I have a very terse style. Sorry for confusing things - Wes Karen Shaeffer wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Wes, if you refer to my comment, well: I just stated the obvious. > > Let me be clear: My comment made no suggestion that anyone should violate any > license agreement. Quite to the contrary, an open discussion should commense > so that each developer is sure to understand the fine grain details of the > licensing which governs this project. As you've noted, Sun's licensing is > not equivalent to the GPL, LGPL, BSD, or even Mozilla. > > Personally, I am not a purist but more a rational pragmatist. The Open Source > community is a big tent--and any particular licensing scheme is ultimately > judged by the collective force of the developer's who embrace it. > > Your comment seems to suggest we in the open source community should not > engage in open discussion concerning licensing issues. IMHO, it is without > question--open, honest, painfully truthful discussion of ideas and issues is > at the very core of the success of the open source software movement. If you > want to sustain the interest and enthusiasm of your developers and continue > to attract new contributors, then this is an issue you need to be open and > up front about. And whatever the reality is: Lutris is better served by > inviting comment rather than shunning it. > > FYI, I have been immersed in the open source community for close to 2 years. > It is quite shocking to get involved in some of the more successful > organizations such as the linux kernel, or gdb, or even svlug, because there > is a raw and untidy dimension to the flow of energy within each of these > organizations--but you learn over time that it just seems to all take care > of itself in the end. And in the end, the best alternatives always seem to > win out. In this light, my comments on this list are ultimately presented > with good will for the long term success of the project. And a free and > unfettered discussion by your developer community on all issues, including > the sensitive ones such as licensing, is the best course of action. > > Finally, let me assure you--Nobody needs to encourage Sun Microsystems to > participate in the open source community. They do so, because it is in their > interest. Otherwise, nothing you or anyone else could say would move them. > And I have no doubt they are not concerned with anyone violating their > licensing agreements--they have plenty of lawyers that would swoop down on > any organization that did so. It's a moot issue having no bearing on Sun's > decisions to participate in the open source community. The real issue is > that everyone should be fully advised of the licensing for the project, and > they should either embrace it or go elsewhere. What better way is there to > realize this than inviting an open discussion about it? > > c, > Karen > -- > ---- > Karen Shaeffer > Neuralscape; Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com > ------------------------------------------------------- > On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:27:24AM -0700, Wes wrote: > > Hi all - > > > > We should probably not speculate in re: legal issues. > > But I would point out: > > > > - the right to make a clean-room implementation is not > > the right to distribute it > > - adding features does not change or conceal redistribution > > - the license prohibits distribution of sun binaries - ejb jar > > - there are other licenses - the spec, the binary downloads, > > the JDK (for the language) - which probably operate in concert > > - the license is revokable by Sun, so even if you could argue > > your way out of this one, Sun could change its mind. > > > > Personally, I believe Sun has done us all great service and > > does deserve to be recognized and compensated for it. The > > situation is not silly nor Sun's position arrogant. This > > is not the case, e.g., of an overbroad or obvious patent. > > Further, their community source program is in the open-source > > vein, and we need to encourage them that they can continue that > > program and co-exist with other open-source communities. Sun > > will be at the center of many initiatives over the coming years, > > and we should not inhibit Sun's community source project or > > taint other open-source efforts by making a few decision-makers > > at Sun believe the open-source community will disrespect > > licenses. > > > > my .02 - wes > > > > > > > > Karen Shaeffer wrote: > > > The problem may be in the widely accepted notion that an open source program > > > is freely open to unrestricted derivation of the source code. How does that play > > > with Sun? > > > > > > c, > > > Karen > ---end quoted text---
begin:vcard n:Isberg;Wes tel;work:(831) 460-7447 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.lutris.com org:Lutris Technologies, Inc. adr:;;1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300;Santa Cruz;Ca.;95060;U.S.A. version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fn:Wes Isberg end:vcard
