Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
On 10/10/12 02:49 PM, Roel_D wrote: > I am still wondering how a company can take opensource products and build a > commercial closed source around it. It all depends on the license terms that the copyright owner chooses to make the code available under. Many open source licenses offer terms that allow making closed source derivatives - for those that don't, some copyright holders will offer alternative license terms allowing closed source usage as part of some contract. Famous examples of those include Qt & MySQL, which were offered under the GPL license (requiring sharing your sources) for free, or a commercial license if you were willing to pay them for it. There should be plenty of websites you can read up more on this topic, such as http://opensource.org/ since the openindiana list isn't the best place for the general discussion of open source licensing, especially of products that aren't openindiana. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
I am still wondering how a company can take opensource products and build a commercial closed source around it. Hence the ZFS code. Kind regards, The out-side Op 10 okt. 2012 om 21:46 heeft Alan Coopersmith het volgende geschreven: > On 10/10/12 11:48 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: >> Alas, like many discussions about legalities (even those with >> lawyers and accountants and such), there are no concrete good >> answers like "do this" or "don't do that" (except the fighting >> club rule #1 - don't talk about it). > > Unfortunately, law is not well engineered - it's not a stable code base that > is > compiled to a form which always does the same thing with > predictable/guaranteed > results if you provide conforming input, but always evolving, highly > localized, > and vastly subject to different results depending on the interpreter. What > seems obvious to one lawyer may be completely opposite of what a judge or jury > rules when a case goes to trial. > > -- >-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com > Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc > > ___ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
On 10/10/12 11:48 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > Alas, like many discussions about legalities (even those with > lawyers and accountants and such), there are no concrete good > answers like "do this" or "don't do that" (except the fighting > club rule #1 - don't talk about it). Unfortunately, law is not well engineered - it's not a stable code base that is compiled to a form which always does the same thing with predictable/guaranteed results if you provide conforming input, but always evolving, highly localized, and vastly subject to different results depending on the interpreter. What seems obvious to one lawyer may be completely opposite of what a judge or jury rules when a case goes to trial. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
2012-10-10 21:03, James Carlson wrote: In any event, I still think it's somewhere between unhelpful and downright dangerous to bother with it as part of OpenIndiana. I've probably crossed the line from "trying to shut it down" to being part of the problem, so I'm going to try to shut up now ... Okay, sorry for the fuss - I did not think this would be such a sensitive and difficult question, and one actually forbidden to discuss in the open so as to not make matters worse. All the responses were educating at least - so thanks to everyone. If there are more comments anyone would like to make, I'd think that we should better conspire about them in private e-mails. Alas, like many discussions about legalities (even those with lawyers and accountants and such), there are no concrete good answers like "do this" or "don't do that" (except the fighting club rule #1 - don't talk about it). The remaining answer (with a grain of sarcasm) I guess remains that if one ever decides to contribute a feature to any kind of open-source project (or indeed to a commercial product, but that would be a hiring entrepreneur's problem), the programmer should hire a lawyer and a patent examiner to make sure that no-one in the world has ever done anything similar. After a few years and rivers of dollars have flown by, one can start coding with whatever remnants of enthusiasm remain. Alternately, one can just go and hack away and never bother - and especially never tell - about his or her motives for adding a particular feature to publicly available code that anyone ready to take some risk would use or resell. And, it seems, such a risk is in fact always above us, as some recent examples from the (US) industry show, so we might just as well not care - the bothering influences nothing - and do what we do best and are trained to: code. Just like we don't care if it's going to rain if we must hit the road anyway. Sorry for making people feel uneasy, if I did by starting this thread. //Jim ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Patents and copyrights are to be feared. Indeed, though they are very different beasts. Copyright covers a specific expression of an idea, and exists automatically. A patent basically covers the idea itself, regardless of expression, and requires a process to establish. (Well, in loose terms.) > Many/most features developed are not patentable That's the part of your message that made me reply. What makes you think so? What's patentable depends on how much time and money someone has to write up a list of claims and then persuade an examiner to grant the patent. You'd think that things that are "obvious to one skilled in the art" would necessarily be excluded. In the US, today at least, you'd be wrong in that assumption. The whole system seems to be built on feeble patents used as a way to avoid competition. > If a developer re-implements a feature he previously implemented at > prior company (from memory) then there is risk because trade secrets > could be involved. True. And trade secrets laws can be a bit scarier, in that they're arbitrary. There's no exception for "first to invent" or "prior art." In any event, I still think it's somewhere between unhelpful and downright dangerous to bother with it as part of OpenIndiana. I've probably crossed the line from "trying to shut it down" to being part of the problem, so I'm going to try to shut up now ... -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jim Klimov wrote: Hello all, I was at an Oracle presentation regarding Solaris 11, and they did mention a number of features which I think appeared after the code split. Some sound like ideas simple enough to be recreated without using their source and just make a look-alike, with any other conincidence being purely coincidental. The main question is IMHO legalese FUD: if we go this path and recreate in illumos from scratch look-alikes of nifty features and minor improvements that were created elsewhere, are such works vulnerable to lawsuits? There is more than enough FUD to go around. It is damaging and unhealthy. Developing software which is works compatibly with some other software (even to the API level) is quite normal and not to be feared. This practice has been supported by court of law in the US and EU, including major recent decisions. Patents and copyrights are to be feared. Many/most features developed are not patentable and without access to source code to copy, copyright is not an issue. If a developer re-implements a feature he previously implemented at prior company (from memory) then there is risk because trade secrets could be involved. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
Jim Klimov wrote: > Does anyone know how, in this case, open remakes of proprietary > tools and protocols can exist (i.e. CARP vs. VRRP, LACP vs. > EtherChannels etc.?) - is it just good will of a proprietary > author that doesn't care about hunting for imposters, or even > embraces their resulting solutions as a widely-accepted defacto > standard? The key issue, at least as far as I know, was that with OpenSolaris, Sun had rights akin to ownership for all of the IPR contained in the code that they distributed, and was able to license that IPR via the CDDL. That's why the contributor's agreement contained assignments. And that's why it took an amazing amount of effort over several years to release the code in the first place. And why some of it was never released. Things are different here, unless there's a legal entity that can grant the same kind of license. Sun was basically taking all of the risk, as they had to do anyway because they had a commercial product. For at least some of the open projects you mention, the IPR issues (where there are some) are the problem of the people who distribute or use the code. The developers involved can't grant a license on something they don't own. Things, though, get at least a little fuzzy there. In some cases, I know that open source developers have depended on a combination of public image (it just looks bad for a big company to go after little guys, no matter how legally sound the basis) and poverty (why bother suing somebody who has nothing?) to keep the wolves away. Whether it works entirely, well, I'm not sure. In all cases, though, if you care about this topic, I think you really should consult your own lawyer. You might not like the answer -- lawyers tend to talk about risk rather than absolute yes/no answers -- but it'd be better than discussing here. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
2012-10-10 16:25, James Carlson пишет: Jim Klimov wrote: So, the main question of this post is: in legislations that are relevant and actively applicable to illumos-derived OSes such as OpenIndiana, are *ideas* and technical specs (meaning public-API/config compatible but code-different implementations) patentable and protectable, or are coders allowed to implement on their own things that others created somehow else? Assuming that the US is one of those "legislations," yes, the system here does allow for at least two types of patents that cover these sorts of ideas (design and method patents), and the exact implementation doesn't matter at all. You can easily infringe without ever having seen the other's code or even without ever have seen or known about the existence of the other patented idea. This is how, for example, an extremely large fruit-related company can claim ownership of rectangles with sanded-down corners. If you're trying to solicit legal advice on an open mailing list, I suspect that's a fruitless search. In fact, talking at all about it is probably a Bad Idea -- doing so can change any future case into a "knowing" infringement. That can have a significant effect on liability. Much better to just discuss ideas rather than ownership. In practical terms, yes. However, before we start coding something that looks like something else someone else has made - and we might know about that, such as the enhancements I've outlined in the OP (in this case, we do even consider making such features *because* they exist elsewhere) - if this per se is known to be a dead-end job that won't be integrated because it can make users of OI/illumos liable to Oracle or anyone that wishes to do so (i.e. by patenting this or similar idea sometime later), than we shouldn't even waste time discussing and coding that? Right? Hooray, innovation!.. Does anyone know how, in this case, open remakes of proprietary tools and protocols can exist (i.e. CARP vs. VRRP, LACP vs. EtherChannels etc.?) - is it just good will of a proprietary author that doesn't care about hunting for imposters, or even embraces their resulting solutions as a widely-accepted defacto standard? Thanks, //Jim ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
Hello, everyone
10.10.12 15:51, Jim Klimov ?:
3) Immutable zones (several levels of immutability, with part
of the zone filesystem being read-only) - basically we had
much of this implicitly with sparse-root zones, but the new
feature is a configurable attribute of the (fullroot) zone
and allows to permit writes to /var+/etc, to only logs, or
to nothing at all, basically.
4) Automatic VNICs for zones - if I got it right, if a VNIC
if referenced in config of an exclusive-IP local zone and is
missing in global zone Crossbow config, the VNIC is spawned
temporarily during zone boot and torn down at its shutdown.
5) An enhancement to "zoneadm" that allows to gracefully shutdown
a local zone from GZ (essentially "zoneadm shutdown {-r}" seems
like just a shortcut to "zlogin zonename 'init 5{6}'").
Of course, there are hundreds more of features that were not
even touched in the presentation, but of those that were - some
of the above look scriptable and simple; others less so, but
still quite useful.
MAY they be implemented for illumos-gate/OI?
Thanks for ideas,
//Jim Klimov
___
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
In, etc required during surgery to change when there was a rise DNS
service specific areas which should be on the teachings of one Master
Bindi etc / named / named.conf required command
sudo chmod 644 /etc
on, this system disk cursed postponed until better times and installed
the new drive system, can not, make this mistake. This system is
important to the divestiture policy.
--
Regards, Arhipkin Ilya
___
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
I think Oracle's position was laid out in the case w/ google over the Java API. They lost, but I doubt that they've given up. ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] What is OI/illumos stance on recreation of features from Solaris 11 (and other proprietary OSes)?
Jim Klimov wrote: > So, the main question of this post is: in legislations that > are relevant and actively applicable to illumos-derived OSes > such as OpenIndiana, are *ideas* and technical specs (meaning > public-API/config compatible but code-different implementations) > patentable and protectable, or are coders allowed to implement > on their own things that others created somehow else? Assuming that the US is one of those "legislations," yes, the system here does allow for at least two types of patents that cover these sorts of ideas (design and method patents), and the exact implementation doesn't matter at all. You can easily infringe without ever having seen the other's code or even without ever have seen or known about the existence of the other patented idea. This is how, for example, an extremely large fruit-related company can claim ownership of rectangles with sanded-down corners. If you're trying to solicit legal advice on an open mailing list, I suspect that's a fruitless search. In fact, talking at all about it is probably a Bad Idea -- doing so can change any future case into a "knowing" infringement. That can have a significant effect on liability. Much better to just discuss ideas rather than ownership. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
