On 1/4/07, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 08:27:41PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> 57 /*
> 58 * Sun elects to include this software in Sun product
> 59 * under the OpenIB BSD license.
>
> That last sentence sounds a bit odd to me. While only Sun gets
> to decide what to include in Sun product, we are talking about
> OpenSolaris here. And it is not a Sun decision what license to
> choose. In this specific case I am sure the choice of license is
> obviously correct. In general, however, comments like that should
> not, IMHO, appear in the OpenSolaris code base.
> It is to be decided by community/CAB/OGB what license to
> use in OpenSolaris code base.
>
> So is it a sign of Sun isn't taking it [OpenSolaris] seriously, or
> a trivial ignorance of most of the Sun' developers ?
Hi Cyril,
Nice catch :) I suppose this could be done one of two ways:
1) The committer makes the decision. (in this case, since the committer
works for Sun and this is being done under Sun's "contributor
agreement", the wording is "Sun elects to include..." as opposed to
"Cyril Plisko elects to include..." if you had committed it)
Hm, I actually was talking about the second part - the one that says
"Sun product" - OpenSolaris is not a Sun product.
That would be equal to "Cyril Plisko elects to include ... in his own
product" wording appearing in the file. In which case I am sure
that would be caught before crossing the bridge.
In case some 3rd party code is licensed under two (or more) licenses,
both of which are CDDL friendly, there might be potentially a conflict
of interest between what is good for Sun product and what is good
for OpenSolaris.
--
Regards,
Cyril
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
