Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[James C. McPherson]

Josh Hurst wrote:

On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one
>appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about
>every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or
>no progress announcements.


The only problem in the ksh93 project is people who are not part of
the project team and who are not participating in the review and
who understand bugger all of the processes we created for OpenSolaris
and which have worked reasonably well for Sun internally, butting
in with inflamatory remarks when there's even the slightest hint
of constructive criticism in messages from Sun employees.


The major problem with the ksh93 project is Sun Microsystems who is
adding more and more mindless rules. Once one task has been finished
Sun always comes up with two more items. Which kind of cooperation is
this? I really think there are too many rules. They may work within
Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality once Sun tries to
ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is hardly appropriate
for an Open Source project.


Ok Josh, how about you provide detail on which of those "rules"
Sun is suddenly pushing forward, and why they are mindless. If
they truly are "mindless" then it would be really good for other
people to find out why.



James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer, system admin and troubleshooter
  http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
Find me on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescmcpherson
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Josh Hurst]

On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>And how far have the star or ksh projects progressed? The last one
>appears to be in serious trouble now because Sun has to complain about
>every little detail and the star project makes either zero progress or
>no progress announcements.


The only problem in the ksh93 project is people who are not part of
the project team and who are not participating in the review and
who understand bugger all of the processes we created for OpenSolaris
and which have worked reasonably well for Sun internally, butting
in with inflamatory remarks when there's even the slightest hint
of constructive criticism in messages from Sun employees.


The major problem with the ksh93 project is Sun Microsystems who is
adding more and more mindless rules. Once one task has been finished
Sun always comes up with two more items. Which kind of cooperation is
this? I really think there are too many rules. They may work within
Sun and may even explain the degradation of quality once Sun tries to
ship it (re: JDS versus normal Gnome) but this is hardly appropriate
for an Open Source project.

Josh
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Doug Scott]

> Provisional -1.
> 
> I think this would be too granular.  I'd like to see
> a rational for why this needs to be an OpenSolaris
> project.  Xfce is developed in its own community
> setting already, creating a project here would
> constitute a fork, or parallel fork if you will, in
> my mind.

Ben,
   If you call version 3.8.16 on companion CD (with owner TBD) as being 
developed
then maybe you better throw you calendar out the window and buy a new one :)
We are not producing a fork of any kind. I have not even ran or at looked at how
the CCD version was built. This project about building the current (and future)
Xfce alongside JDS, and using the same development tools and model. You should
be aware that the build of Xfce uses many of the underlying JDS/GTK libraries, 
and
Acessibility apps. It depends directly on the JDS project. Many changes in the
JDS project can have a direct affect on building Xfce. Therefore development 
between
the 2 projects should be close, to ensure compatibility.
 
> 
> The question then is: Does work need to be done on
> Xfce that will not be accepted by the standard Xfce
> codebase thus requiring an independent project?

It is definitely distinct enough from JDS not to include it
directly as part of JDS. Other than it was never originally
supported by Sun, so was added to the Companion CD,
I don't see how it belongs in the CCD community more than
is does in the Desktop community. Note: I am NOT saying
that the distribution method changes That is up to how
a distribution wants to package it.

> 
> If not, then I believe this would be part of the SFW
> or CCD packaging projects which already exist.
> 
> I know that JDS and KDE have projects, but these are
> much larger desktop projects with hundreds of
> applications and dependencies. 

Many of the JDS dependencies are the same as Xfce. I don't
get your point. Are you saying that a project is determined
by how many apps or dependencies it has??? Currently when
I look in my Xfce menu, I see the same hundreds of apps
from JDS. Should I add them to the Xfce list to make it big
enough to call it a project? :)


Other desktop efforts
> such as Xfce and Enlightenment are much smaller by
> contrast and I don't see them as candidates for 
> project status.

While they are smaller, they are still a very widely used desktop.
I don't see why they should be moved to a different category. I also
do not think it is a great vote of confidence for the www.xfce.org
community if we don't take them seriously.

Doug
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Solaris 10 native client with openldap on linux - password change

[Lars Tunkrans]

vsp123 wrote:
>In a similar note, why is Solaris native client better than PAM in Solaris? 
>Would native client be >able to talk to OpenLDAP's ppolicy modules too? PAM 
>does this pretty solid from Linux clients.

  I have always had  to  modify /etc/pam.conf as well as  enableing the Native 
LDAP client.
 This is one of the shortcommings of Solaris 10,  there should be a ready made  
example 
of  /etc/pam.conf   in LDAP  config in the same way as there is an 
nsswitch.ldap  template 
in the shipped system.
  You need to read and understand  and implement the  pam_ldap(5)   man page.

I hereby propose that  Solaris Nevada  will be issued with a 
/etc/pam.ldap.example
file  !


//Lars
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Ian Collins]

Ben Rockwood wrote:

>Provisional -1.
>
>I think this would be too granular.  I'd like to see a rational for why this 
>needs to be an OpenSolaris project.  Xfce is developed in its own community 
>setting already, creating a project here would constitute a fork, or parallel 
>fork if you will, in my mind.
>
>The question then is: Does work need to be done on Xfce that will not be 
>accepted by the standard Xfce codebase thus requiring an independent project?
>
>If not, then I believe this would be part of the SFW or CCD packaging projects 
>which already exist.
>
>  
>
Have a look at the original thread on the desktop list:

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=89897#89897

where this was discussed a few days ago.

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Newbie question - OpenSolaris + Active Directory replacement

[Ché Kristo]

This is possible with Samba and Samba runs on Solaris, so yes it is possible. 
Whether Sun offers any 'integrated' product or service particularly targeted at 
what you are trying to achieve is something i'll leave for the Sun guys.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Ben Rockwood]

Provisional -1.

I think this would be too granular.  I'd like to see a rational for why this 
needs to be an OpenSolaris project.  Xfce is developed in its own community 
setting already, creating a project here would constitute a fork, or parallel 
fork if you will, in my mind.

The question then is: Does work need to be done on Xfce that will not be 
accepted by the standard Xfce codebase thus requiring an independent project?

If not, then I believe this would be part of the SFW or CCD packaging projects 
which already exist.

I know that JDS and KDE have projects, but these are much larger desktop 
projects with hundreds of applications and dependencies.  Other desktop efforts 
such as Xfce and Enlightenment are much smaller by contrast and I don't see 
them as candidates for 
project status.

I'm welcome to arguments in favor, I have no interest in turning anyone away 
(not that my opinion has any deciding weight, this proposal already has 4 
seconds) but I want to be rational in our criteria, even prior to completion of 
the constitution.

benr.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Bryan Cantrill]

> >Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
> >blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/):  let's say that several years down the
> >track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
> >their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide, but
> >also extend and develop. But the competitor doesn't want to outsource its
> >OS development to Sun -- they just want to hijack OpenSolaris.  A GPLv3
> >dual-license allows for a devious plan:  they could take the source, strip
> >the CDDL, and announce that their "GPLv3-only" OpenSolaris was open to all
> >comers.
> 
> This can be done right now, without any involvement with a GPL dual
> license, solely under CDDL.
> 
> This hypothetical competitor can take the current OpenSolaris, under
> CDDL, set up an open development environment somewhere, and purposely
> and explicitly disallow anyone who is now, or has ever been associated
> with, Sun Microsystems, from participating in this new venture, under
> any circumstances.

Perhaps, but the license is still the same -- a derivative of both could
still incorporate code from both.

> This new venture can make API and ABI incompatible changes to existing
> source, they can add new source (and features) based on these
> incompatible changes, thereby making it, if  not impossible,
> impractical to even try to merge these changes back into OpenSolaris.
> This newly added source might implement features which would be
> desirable in OpenSolaris. However, because of the nefarious intent of
> this hypothetical competitor, these features cannot be brought back
> into OpenSolaris, because it would require ABI and API breakage.

And again, a derivative of both could still resolve the divergence.
The problem comes when, under a dual-license, the fork becomes unresolvable
because the forks are licensed differently.  Such a fork would force
each member of the OpenSolaris community to choose one or the other,
cleaving (and weakening) the community.

- Bryan

--
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.   http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Alan Coopersmith]

Alan Hargreaves wrote:
There are currently two components that are needed before one can do an 
open build. The first one is one that has been talked a lot about, the 
other is only required on SPARC, that is the sparc disassembler.


Doesn't gdb, gcc or the gnu binutils have a suitable disassmbler
already?   Would it be easier to use of those than start from scratch?

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Hugh McIntyre]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So i18n and sparc disassembler.  I don't happen to own a SPARC, so  
anyone up to the task? ( unless it can get done in the 60 day try&buy  
period, which I doubt )


I would argue that there is little need to actually have a SPARC to
write a SPARC disassembly routine.  All you need is SPARC binaries several
GB of which you can easily download from Sun.  As long as you write the
assembler portably.


Close, or at least this will get you 98% of the way there.

But whoever works on this probably also needs to make sure to include 
some binaries optimized with different values for -xvis, -xchip=, 
-xcode=, and other options that might use extra 
instructions not used by the default makefile rules for Solaris proper. 
 Possibly testing the disassembler on the platform-specific copies of 
libc and medialib will do some of this of course.  But if not, some of 
these more obscure instructions might take more testing.


Hugh.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Alan Coopersmith]

S Destika wrote:

Fedora - I am sure you've heard of Fedora Foundation which RedHat created - one of it's 
goals is "... By providing a non-profit entity to organize and manage 
volunteers."


You mean the Fedora Foundation that Red Hat shut down less than a year
after it was formed with a note stating "Red Hat *must* maintain a 
certain amount of control over Fedora decisions, because Red Hat's

business model *depends* upon Fedora. Red Hat contributes millions of
dollars in staff and resources to the success of Fedora, and Red Hat
also accepts all of the legal risk for Fedora." ?

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-April/msg00016.html
is an interesting read when discussing corporate control vs. non-profit
foundations.

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Ian Collins]

Doug Scott wrote:

>For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop built using the gtk+ 
>libraries.
>Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part of the companion CD with 
>no owner.
>I am proposing to move the development to a project within the Desktop 
>Community,
>where it shares many components with the JDS project. The distribution of Xfce 
>would
>be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could still include it on the 
>companion CD. Also
>there would be development releases using the same process as the JDS project.
>
>Currently I have a fully working Xfce 4.4 (latest stable), built on the JDS 
>CBE using 
>Sun Studio 11.
> 
>  
>
Having looked though the code a while back and giving up, grand job!

+1 from me.

Ian
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Newbie question - OpenSolaris + Active Directory replacement

[denise]

I am currently managing environments with Linux + Windows servers.

- however the stunning capabilities of ZFS & Availability Suite have caused me 
to seriously investigate deploying OpenSolaris on a number of systems.

- immediate question in case someone can point me in the right direction even 
though not specific OpenSolaris question - does Sun offer software that will 
allow me to deploy an Active Directory replacement running on OpenSolaris?

Key capabilities will be >

1. import all data from current ADS
2. easy manageability

ta
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Alan Coopersmith]

Doug Scott wrote:

For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop built using the gtk+ 
libraries.
Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part of the companion CD with 
no owner.
I am proposing to move the development to a project within the Desktop 
Community,
where it shares many components with the JDS project. The distribution of Xfce 
would
be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could still include it on the 
companion CD. Also
there would be development releases using the same process as the JDS project.


+1

--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ian Collins]

S Destika wrote:

>>And yet MySQL, Ubuntu, Fedora, and other high-profile
>>OSS projects
>>thrive in such environments, so it can't be
>>universally true.
>>
>>
>>
>None of those example is even relevant BTW. MySQL gets very little from the 
>community - it's mostly the MySQL employees that contribute. Ubuntu - not sure 
>why you bring that up as it's a distro and it doesn't set any overall strategy 
>for Linux - they as a community do what the feel is right for them and make 
>those changes available for anyone. Fedora - I am sure you've heard of Fedora 
>Foundation which RedHat created - one of it's goals is "... By providing a 
>non-profit entity to organize and manage volunteers."
>
>Correct analogy would be possible if say kernel.org kernel development was run 
>by RedHat or if Linus worked for RedHat.
> 
>  
>
Any sign of the details of those eight x86 systems?

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> And yet MySQL, Ubuntu, Fedora, and other high-profile
> OSS projects
> thrive in such environments, so it can't be
> universally true.
> 
None of those example is even relevant BTW. MySQL gets very little from the 
community - it's mostly the MySQL employees that contribute. Ubuntu - not sure 
why you bring that up as it's a distro and it doesn't set any overall strategy 
for Linux - they as a community do what the feel is right for them and make 
those changes available for anyone. Fedora - I am sure you've heard of Fedora 
Foundation which RedHat created - one of it's goals is "... By providing a 
non-profit entity to organize and manage volunteers."

Correct analogy would be possible if say kernel.org kernel development was run 
by RedHat or if Linus worked for RedHat.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal -- Honeycomb Informationand dev

[Jim Grisanzio]

Stephen Lau wrote On 02/03/07 04:19,:

Scott Tracy wrote:



On Feb 1, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:

* Scott Tracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 
[2007-02-01 22:07]:


So, let's talk through this so I can understand.  How would you 
work  on a design doc with the community?  Walk through the normal 
SDF  process on something you want to develop from start to finish 
in the  open.



  I don't think it's necessary to walk through the entirety of the
  software development framework (SDF) to answer your question.  I think
  that what's emerging (for me) from this discussion is that there is a
  desire for a OpenSolaris project proposal to follow some amount of
  discussion in related community groups (via forum, or via IRC maybe).
  That is, the speculative phase of a project--between one pager
  (internal announcement) and first design review--should take part, at
  least in part, in a sponsoring community group first.  Once it becomes
  clear that the initial idea has garnered some interest (or bemused
  tolerance), then a project proposal to -discuss is easily justified.



The point on the SDF or any software project is that at some point to 
continue you need repositories to house information and establish a 
permanent contact point with the community.  I was trying to 
understand how joint design documents would be housed and other 
relevant information as an open project developed.  And I don't 
understand the point of rejecting a project just because source is not 
immediately available. 



I'm sorry, my mistake... I thought this whole OpenSolaris thing was 
about open source.  I didn't realise there was an "open - but not 
immediately available source" category of open source software.


Clearly you are in favour of the project, you've given Peter the +1 he 
needs - so you'll undoubtedly get the project established by the current 
governance rules.



Eric Boutilier is out on vacation (I think he's back tomorrow). I'm not 
sure I see a clear +1 here in this thread. Scott's support seemed 
qualified to me. If I'm wrong Scott, please clarify. Nothing will happen 
without a clear +1 expression of support.


Jim






___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Alan Coopersmith]

S Destika wrote:
OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit organization should not be in sole control and dictatorship of any OSS project for simple reasons. 


And yet MySQL, Ubuntu, Fedora, and other high-profile OSS projects
thrive in such environments, so it can't be universally true.


--
-Alan Coopersmith-   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Ian Collins]

Rich Teer wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Is there?  I can't find it, are you think of the PPC community?
>>
>>
>
>Nope, the Appliances one (though when I originally replied I couldn't
>recall the exact name).
>
>  
>
That community appears to have gone to sleep for a while and it hasn't
considered small FLASH based boards.

I was looking for an alternative to CE on this class of system.

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Rich Teer]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Ian Collins wrote:

> Is there?  I can't find it, are you think of the PPC community?

Nope, the Appliances one (though when I originally replied I couldn't
recall the exact name).

-- 
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: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Ian Collins]

Noah yan wrote:
> On 2/4/07, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>


 Has anyone done any work on a minimal embeddable Open Solaris that can
 boot from FLASH on a single board PC?

 I was think initially of the windows CE space, rather than the embedded
 Linux one.

 If not, is there enough interest for an embeddable Open Solaris project?

>>
>>
>> http://research.sun.com/projects/dashboard.php?id=175
>>
>> and we are working on solars powerpc port
>> (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ppc-dev/) , the first step of
>> making it embedded.
>>
>  
>
I was thinking of using Open Solaris on single board x86 platforms,
which should be a lot easier than PPC.

Ian


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Ian Collins]

Rich Teer wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Has anyone done any work on a minimal embeddable Open Solaris that can
>>boot from FLASH on a single board PC?
>>
>>
>
>[...]
>
>  
>
>>If not, is there enough interest for an embeddable Open Solaris project?
>>
>>
>
>Note only is there interest, but IIRC, there's already an embedded community
>on opensolaris.org.  :-)
>
>  
>
Is there?  I can't find it, are you think of the PPC community?

Ian
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Jim Grisanzio]

S Destika wrote On 02/05/07 00:22,:
a) Community and Sun are not the same - Sun is a for-profit organization not community. 



When people say "Sun" they generally mean the company itself, not the 
company's OpenSolaris engineers. Those engineers wrote the code and are 
directly involved in the community. That's obvious. Sun, however, is 
also part of the community in that it provides resources -- millions of 
dollars -- to fund the project and promote it around the world. That's a 
pretty big contribution, don't you think? Also, although Sun is a 
company, it asks it's employees -- rather directly, actually -- to 
participate in communities of all kinds. Sun employees have been 
participating in developer communities for decades.




b) I never said Sun be excluded from the train - I was just saying let 
community drive the train.



The OpenSolaris Charter, Development Process, and Constitution are all 
documents designed to create a community-driven project:


  http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/charter/
  http://opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance/
  http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/os_dev_process/


Jim
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Noah yan]

http://research.sun.com/projects/dashboard.php?id=175

and we are working on solars powerpc port
(http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ppc-dev/) , the first step of
making it embedded.

Noah

On 2/4/07, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Has anyone done any work on a minimal embeddable Open Solaris that can
boot from FLASH on a single board PC?

I was think initially of the windows CE space, rather than the embedded
Linux one.

If not, is there enough interest for an embeddable Open Solaris project?

Cheers,

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Glynn Foster]

Doug Scott wrote:
> For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop built using the gtk+ 
> libraries.
> Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part of the companion CD with 
> no owner.
> I am proposing to move the development to a project within the Desktop 
> Community,
> where it shares many components with the JDS project. The distribution of 
> Xfce would
> be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could still include it on the 
> companion CD. Also
> there would be development releases using the same process as the JDS project.
> 
> Currently I have a fully working Xfce 4.4 (latest stable), built on the JDS 
> CBE using 
> Sun Studio 11.

An excellent +1 from me - Doug, awesome work, you're a legend ;)


Glynn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Michael Kiedrowski]

> For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop
> built using the gtk+ libraries.
> Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part
> of the companion CD with no owner.
> I am proposing to move the development to a project
> within the Desktop Community,
> where it shares many components with the JDS project.
> The distribution of Xfce would
> be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could
> still include it on the companion CD. Also
> there would be development releases using the same
> process as the JDS project.
> 
> Currently I have a fully working Xfce 4.4 (latest
> stable), built on the JDS CBE using 
> Sun Studio 11.

+1

~Mike
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Rich Teer]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Ian Collins wrote:

> Has anyone done any work on a minimal embeddable Open Solaris that can
> boot from FLASH on a single board PC?

[...]

> If not, is there enough interest for an embeddable Open Solaris project?

Note only is there interest, but IIRC, there's already an embedded community
on opensolaris.org.  :-)

-- 
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: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Rich Teer]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Doug Scott wrote:

> For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop built using the gtk+ 
> libraries.
> Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part of the companion CD with 
> no owner.
> I am proposing to move the development to a project within the Desktop 
> Community,
> where it shares many components with the JDS project. The distribution of 
> Xfce would
> be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could still include it on the 
> companion CD. Also
> there would be development releases using the same process as the JDS project.
> 
> Currently I have a fully working Xfce 4.4 (latest stable), built on the JDS 
> CBE using 
> Sun Studio 11.

Finally, something that isn't discussing licenses!  (Important though
that is...)

A hearty +1 from me.

-- 
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

[osol-discuss] Project Proposal for Xfce Desktop

[Doug Scott]

For you who don't know, Xfce is a lightweight desktop built using the gtk+ 
libraries.
Currently there is a very old verion of Xfce as part of the companion CD with 
no owner.
I am proposing to move the development to a project within the Desktop 
Community,
where it shares many components with the JDS project. The distribution of Xfce 
would
be up to the distribution builds. e.g. Sun could still include it on the 
companion CD. Also
there would be development releases using the same process as the JDS project.

Currently I have a fully working Xfce 4.4 (latest stable), built on the JDS CBE 
using 
Sun Studio 11.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Stefan Teleman]

On 2/4/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/):  let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide, but
also extend and develop. But the competitor doesn't want to outsource its
OS development to Sun -- they just want to hijack OpenSolaris.  A GPLv3
dual-license allows for a devious plan:  they could take the source, strip
the CDDL, and announce that their "GPLv3-only" OpenSolaris was open to all
comers.


This can be done right now, without any involvement with a GPL dual
license, solely under CDDL.

This hypothetical competitor can take the current OpenSolaris, under
CDDL, set up an open development environment somewhere, and purposely
and explicitly disallow anyone who is now, or has ever been associated
with, Sun Microsystems, from participating in this new venture, under
any circumstances.

This new venture can make API and ABI incompatible changes to existing
source, they can add new source (and features) based on these
incompatible changes, thereby making it, if  not impossible,
impractical to even try to merge these changes back into OpenSolaris.
This newly added source might implement features which would be
desirable in OpenSolaris. However, because of the nefarious intent of
this hypothetical competitor, these features cannot be brought back
into OpenSolaris, because it would require ABI and API breakage.

At this point there are two incompatible versions of OpenSolaris,
which can never be reconciled.

This new "WeBrokeABIWithOpenSolarisSoNeenerNeenerNeener" operating
system might even become very successful, and might even "steal
momentum from OpenSolaris". And this was done exclusively under CDDL.

What does this have to do with the GPL ?

For the record: Yes, i am a card carrying member of the Free Software
Foundation.

--Stefan

--
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On 2/4/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
> OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
> binary code.
>
> Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
> CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
>
> 2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
> (or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
> and the fork is a little bit out of date.
>
> ...repeat every 2 weeks...
> and each time the fork gets more out of date.
>
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible.  Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
> Good for them.  Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
> fatally for OpenSolaris.

Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/):  let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide, but
also extend and develop. But the competitor doesn't want to outsource its
OS development to Sun -- they just want to hijack OpenSolaris.  A GPLv3
dual-license allows for a devious plan:  they could take the source, strip
the CDDL, and announce that their "GPLv3-only" OpenSolaris was open to all
comers. For good measure, they might find some of the major pain points for
non-Sun contributors to OpenSolaris and rectify them -- by either hiring
those contributors, or establishing great developer resources, or offering
services based on their GPLv3-only variant. The optics are good (the
competitor positions themselves as "liberating" OpenSolaris, perhaps even
joyfully expressing as much in a 101 billboard or two), they get the
technology, and they steal the momentum -- albeit at a terrible, terrible
cost to the OpenSolaris community.


i still see no benefit in dual licensing but i'm trying to be unbiased here
isn't most of that already possible now? the only difference is that
the gplv3-only news would give them a little short lived publicity and
opensolaris would not be able to integrate their changes.
having a company that invests as much as sun does in solaris is what i
think is unlikely to happen, if they do, and they solve some serious
problems the opensolaris community has at that time, then what is the
problem? cant that happen even if we dont touch the license?. forking
is certainly possible, it has already happened, check netbsd-openbsd
and freebsd-dragonflybsd.

nacho



And before you blow off the above as impossible: both the AT&T/Berkeley
wars in the 1980s and the Linux/proprietary wars in the 1990s contain
significant elements of the above scenario.  It is our responsibility in
the OpenSolaris community to not just reflect today's economics, but
understand tomorrow's possibilities -- and to have a license that protects
our community from the internecine feuds that have destroyed or hindered
so many software efforts.  And before anyone says it:  this is _not_ about
protecting Sun -- it is about protecting OpenSolaris.  Indeed, the scenario
under which the risk of a dual-license feud would be most grave would be
the untimely demise of Sun Microsystems; it is exactly because we must
protect our community against such a cataclysm that we must seriously
consider the risks of dual-licensing.

- Bryan

--
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.   http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Dennis Clarke]

> On the third hand,

  { third hand? really ? }   :-)

Any fork with a chance of doing anything would need guys like Jeff Bonwick
and Jonathan Adams on staff.  Bryan Cantrill and Mr. Schilling. Millions of
dollars would be needed.  Millions.

Let me check my bank account .. just .. a sec .. here .. ah yes

nope ..

maybe I'll check again on Tuesday for that seven digit balance.

In all seriousness I started gathering up nice domain names for a new
project starting a year ago or so.  Maybe longer.  The idea was based  on
the original tagline "Open for Business".  Then I managed to schlock over
the idea "fast, safe, open, free. open for business, open for me" and so I
bought up all the opn4 domains as well as openfor.org just to be safe.

At some point a fork of some sort would happen and so I gathered resources
to be ready for that day.  Now I feel that a fork can *not* be done without
instant failure right after the fanfare dies down.  However there are other
things that can be done.  Should be done.  Like a community driven
OpenSolaris based test center.  A build center where people with no
resources just simply login and play.  Where a Sun Global Desktop gets
handed out for free.  Also, we can take all the software from Blastwave and
drag it into a pure Solaris 10 build environment.  We can build a cluster
based on the new Sun Cluster 3.2 software and then play/learn with it.

Future looking and community based ... that is what I am thinking.

But a fork of OpenSolaris.org itself?  That is a whole other kettle of fish.

Dennis Clarke

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Embeddable Open Solaris

[Ian Collins]

Has anyone done any work on a minimal embeddable Open Solaris that can
boot from FLASH on a single board PC?

I was think initially of the windows CE space, rather than the embedded
Linux one.

If not, is there enough interest for an embeddable Open Solaris project?

Cheers,

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Bob Palowoda]

Casper wrote:
> 
> I live in a community in which is perhaps not very
> divers, but it
> contains lawyers, real estate agent, brokers, actors,
> photographers,
> people who own their homes, people who rent, single
> parent families,
> single persons, unemployed, employed, self-employed.
> These are all people in a single community but with
> vastly different
> means and different interests.
> 

  A Hah!   I knew the Dutch where involved with world domination and 
now I have prof that they are after our divers.  Somebody quick hide
John Plocher under a rock.  

---Bob
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Alan Burlison]

Bryan Cantrill wrote:


It is our responsibility in
the OpenSolaris community to not just reflect today's economics, but
understand tomorrow's possibilities -- and to have a license that protects
our community from the internecine feuds that have destroyed or hindered
so many software efforts.  And before anyone says it:  this is _not_ about
protecting Sun -- it is about protecting OpenSolaris.  Indeed, the scenario
under which the risk of a dual-license feud would be most grave would be
the untimely demise of Sun Microsystems; it is exactly because we must
protect our community against such a cataclysm that we must seriously
consider the risks of dual-licensing.


Thanks for pointing out the risks so concisely, and a big +1.

--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Simon Phipps]

Thanks for that, John, it was exactly what I was going to write. It's  
easy in these discussions to forget the power of the community we all  
comprise. People creating a fork take on the burden of re-porting,  
regression testing and rework unless they can attract a significant  
number of the skilled contributors to their project. I don't believe  
that will happen unless we collectively screw the first 2 years up so  
badly that everyone is begging for a fork. So far we only have one  
person in that position :-)


S.


On Feb 4, 2007, at 23:40, John Plocher wrote:


Alan Burlison wrote:

  When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the  
closed binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything  
to stop someone at that point ripping out both the assembly  
exception and the CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly- 
licensed fork, with all the problems that entails?


IANAL as well.  And I don't speak for Sun.

So, if I follow this hypothetical scenerio for a moment, how does  
it play out?


The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
binary code.

Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.

2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
(or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
and the fork is a little bit out of date.

...repeat every 2 weeks...
and each time the fork gets more out of date.

Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible.  Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
Good for them.  Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
fatally for OpenSolaris.

On the other hand, if everyone moved lock, stock and barrel over to
the fork, there still shouldn't be much of an issue - after all,
the Nextenta's, Schillix's and Belinix's etc of the world shouldn't
have a problem with using the GPL'd versions then, either.
Yes, some users who themselves ca not use GPL'd stuff might be
disenfranchised, so they wouldn't like this option.  The key
uncertainty here is whether it would effect Sun.  I'm not sure
(but IANAL) it would.

On the third hand, since it is really only this transitional state,
where we have that bag of closed binaries slung over our back, that
makes the CDDL important and the GPL impossible, maybe the OpenSolaris
community itself would be the ones to do the fork

I don't see the downside here...

  -John


___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Bryan Cantrill]

> The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
> OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
> binary code.
> 
> Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
> CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
> 
> 2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
> (or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
> and the fork is a little bit out of date.
> 
> ...repeat every 2 weeks...
> and each time the fork gets more out of date.
> 
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible.  Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
> Good for them.  Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
> fatally for OpenSolaris.

Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/):  let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide, but
also extend and develop. But the competitor doesn't want to outsource its
OS development to Sun -- they just want to hijack OpenSolaris.  A GPLv3
dual-license allows for a devious plan:  they could take the source, strip
the CDDL, and announce that their "GPLv3-only" OpenSolaris was open to all
comers. For good measure, they might find some of the major pain points for
non-Sun contributors to OpenSolaris and rectify them -- by either hiring
those contributors, or establishing great developer resources, or offering
services based on their GPLv3-only variant. The optics are good (the
competitor positions themselves as "liberating" OpenSolaris, perhaps even
joyfully expressing as much in a 101 billboard or two), they get the
technology, and they steal the momentum -- albeit at a terrible, terrible
cost to the OpenSolaris community.

And before you blow off the above as impossible: both the AT&T/Berkeley
wars in the 1980s and the Linux/proprietary wars in the 1990s contain
significant elements of the above scenario.  It is our responsibility in
the OpenSolaris community to not just reflect today's economics, but
understand tomorrow's possibilities -- and to have a license that protects
our community from the internecine feuds that have destroyed or hindered
so many software efforts.  And before anyone says it:  this is _not_ about
protecting Sun -- it is about protecting OpenSolaris.  Indeed, the scenario
under which the risk of a dual-license feud would be most grave would be
the untimely demise of Sun Microsystems; it is exactly because we must
protect our community against such a cataclysm that we must seriously
consider the risks of dual-licensing.

- Bryan

--
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.   http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[John Plocher]

Alan Burlison wrote:

  When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed 
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop 
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the 
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the 
problems that entails?


IANAL as well.  And I don't speak for Sun.

So, if I follow this hypothetical scenerio for a moment, how does it play out?

The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
binary code.

Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.

2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
(or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
and the fork is a little bit out of date.

...repeat every 2 weeks...
and each time the fork gets more out of date.

Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible.  Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
Good for them.  Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
fatally for OpenSolaris.

On the other hand, if everyone moved lock, stock and barrel over to
the fork, there still shouldn't be much of an issue - after all,
the Nextenta's, Schillix's and Belinix's etc of the world shouldn't
have a problem with using the GPL'd versions then, either.
Yes, some users who themselves ca not use GPL'd stuff might be
disenfranchised, so they wouldn't like this option.  The key
uncertainty here is whether it would effect Sun.  I'm not sure
(but IANAL) it would.

On the third hand, since it is really only this transitional state,
where we have that bag of closed binaries slung over our back, that
makes the CDDL important and the GPL impossible, maybe the OpenSolaris
community itself would be the ones to do the fork

I don't see the downside here...

  -John
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

[...]
> Like it or not, the vast majority of community
> members who are active
> contributors are Sun employees, so their opinion (as
> individuals, no a
> corporate entity) will drive the project's direction,
> that's how
> democracy works

Right.  Sun employees, past and present (ignoring
Sun-the-company for a moment) are to OpenSolaris what
99% of Linus and everyone who has contributed to Linux or
for a particular distro, to any app bundled in that distro, plus
those who put the distro together, provided
they've been doing this for more than two years,
_all_put_together_ are to Linux in general and that particular
Linux distro specifically.

So simply being able to get a word in, have a little
influence on those areas that affect our participation,
and by participating become eligible for further opportinities
to influence future direction, _are_ democratic and proportional
representation for the rest of us.

And I too would find it interesting to see the hardware description for
those 8 systems.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Casper . Dik]

>> Why are Sun developers not part of the OpenSolaris
>> developer community?
>>
>I have never meant that - I have said Sun in driver's seat of the
>community train (IOW the key decision maker, the one who installs all
>the pawns and directs the pieces and controls the rules of th e game)
>is not acceptable for an open project. Sun, in that role, cannot be a
>part of community.

If someone is elected in the OGB, are they then no longer part of the
community?   Which pawns does Sun install and which key decisions have
they made?  They have started the processes and then they empowered the CAB
to setup the consitution and the self-governing rules.  From this
will spring the OGB and the communities self-governance.

>Who set those rules? What if I have a valid reason to change a rule or
>two? Why can the community not set their own rules? Why is that you
>take it for granted that Sun will do things on behalf of t he
>community? To date how many rules were set in stone by the community
>(exclude Sun)? Why do I keep hearing that Sun will setup a SCM, Sun
>will do this, Sun will do that? Where can I see community' s (exclude
>Sun) decisions being taken forward? Examples?

Why do you think the rules weren't set by the community?  They are,
of course, modelled after Sun's development models as those are
part of what Sun is opening up; however, the external community
and the internal community both took part in setting up these rules.

The reason why you keep hearing about "Sun will X" is quite simple;
Sun does not want to throw the sources over the fence and tell people
were to find them and "go now and amuse yourself with them".

For Open Development to work, we need to bridge the internal and the
external community.  Clearly, we can't afford to all stop working on
Solaris until all the issues are solved; instead we're slowly moving
our development processes to the outside; this is a slow process because
the amount of changed involved inside Sun is mind boggling.

>Community in this context is an entity bound together for a cause.
>Your analogy would lead me to b elieve that whole world is a community
>- no distinguishing factors, no barriers, but no cause as well. That
>doesn't make any sense. You have to have a concept of a common, well
>defined, meaningful, non-conflicting cause when you consider a
>community.

In some sens the whole world is, but OpenSolaris narrows the world
down considerably.  I don't agree that a community needs to have a
no-conflicting cause.  A community is defined by those who comprise
it; not by how they feel about one another or a single goal.  Such
definitions are unworkable.  Perhaps you're confused with the term
"commune".  A community is much more loosely coupled than that;
I would define it as "a group of people with a common interest";
there is no consensus, implied or otherwise, in a community.

But I also think I take issue with your implication that somehow
Sun nor its Customers have any cause in common with the
"OpenSolaris community".  I think they do.  But it's more vague than
that, that's why I'd say it's a common interest (in all things
OpenSolaris/Solaris)

>Your definition of community will include all - the hunters, the
>people who destroy weapons, the people who demonstrate against hunting
>and people who don't like people who hunt. That won't make any sense.

No, it doesn't.  You're trying very hard to argue semantics and deliberately
misunderstanding and continuously redirecting the argument.

Clearly, such a group of people would not form a "hunting community".
But they could all be members of the OpenSolaris community if
they share an interest in OpenSolaris.

Now, if for your sake I'd define OpenSolaris' goal as
"furthering the use of OpenSolaris/Solaris, fostering the development
of OpenSolaris/Solaris and improving the quality, funcionality,
reliability, performance etc of OpenSolaris/Solaris", where would Sun's have
a conflict of interest with your mythical not-to-inclusive
OpenSolaris community?

'nuf said.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why are Sun developers not part of the OpenSolaris
> developer community?
>
I have never meant that - I have said Sun in driver's seat of the community 
train (IOW the key decision maker, the one who installs all the pawns and 
directs the pieces and controls the rules of the game) is not acceptable for an 
open project. Sun, in that role, cannot be a part of community.


besides an OGB that is to be elected ASAP, we also have a constitution
draft that will dictate how a lot of things are to be done


> The development process sets out rules; and if you
> abide by those rules
> there is nothing that can prevent you from committing
> code.

Who set those rules? What if I have a valid reason to change a rule or two? Why 
can the community not set their own rules? Why is that you take it for granted 
that Sun will do things on behalf of the community? To date how many rules were 
set in stone by the community (exclude Sun)? Why do I keep hearing that Sun 
will setup a SCM, Sun will do this, Sun will do that? Where can I see 
community's (exclude Sun) decisions being taken forward? Examples?


the constitution is currently a draft, join the discusion, ask for any
changes you would like, those will be reviewed by other members of the
community and are likely to be accepted if they are good enough.
the scm is in the works and was elected by the community based on
technical merits, the thread is still in the archives if you want to
read it. the ogb members will also be elected by the community, sun
included



> Perhaps I don't understand the word community as you
> understand it;
> but to believe that a community exists of only like
> minded people
> is flawed.
Community in this context is an entity bound together for a cause. Your analogy 
would lead me to believe that whole world is a community - no distinguishing 
factors, no barriers, but no cause as well. That doesn't make any sense. You 
have to have a concept of a common, well defined, meaningful, non-conflicting 
cause when you consider a community.

> But I've glad we've figured out one thing: you and I
> have completely
> different understanding of what a community is and
> particularly what
> the OpenSolaris community is comprised of.  I see it
> as all-inclusive,
> all encompassing; free for all OpenSolaris kindred
> spirits.
> But you, you seem to want to specifically exclude
> Sun, Sun customers
> (Sun employees?) and perhaps others from this
> community.
>

That's because you are missing the "common cause with no conflicting or contradictory 
interests" part from the community. IOW you can have a "hunters community" where all 
people have a single cause - hunt some animal. But you cannot have an entity a  part of that 
community if it has an conflicting goal of, say destroying all weapons from the world as that would 
prevent the hunting community from hunting some day although it isn't imminent.

Your definition of community will include all - the hunters, the people who 
destroy weapons, the people who demonstrate against hunting and people who 
don't like people who hunt. That won't make any sense.


will the community that wants to destroy all the weapons in the world
even consider joining the hunter community? a community exists when
they have a common goal for whatever reasons. Sun and the rest of the
opensolaris community have that, they want opensolaris to be the best
os out there. sun wants opensolaris to grow to make some profit
selling support and such, other members of the community want the same
because they thing opensolaris is the best tool for the job and want
it to be even better. Redhat wants linux to improbe to make more
profit selling it, other members of the linux community want linux to
be better because that is what they use. it is you analogy that is
flawed.

nacho
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ian Collins]

S Destika wrote:

>>So you would say the IBM and Red Hat aren't part of the Linux
>>community?
>>
>>
>
>Ah I like stating the obvious. IBM and RedHat are not driving the community. 
>Yes they are part of the community and no one could deny that but the key is 
>that they work within the community's interests. They comply with the 
>community's rules, they do not, for example force strategies, usage of tools, 
>SCM, processes on the community. Community decides that stuff and everyone in 
>the community happily uses it.
> 
>  
>
The SCM selection was open and made with community participation.  The
change is a huge one for Sun, without any added business value outside
of the context of Open Solaris. 

Like it or not, the vast majority of community members who are active
contributors are Sun employees, so their opinion (as individuals, no a
corporate entity) will drive the project's direction, that's how
democracy works

Can we we have the details of those 8 x86 systems please?  I can't
believe you are doing anything other than being disruptive if you can't
back up this one simple claim.

Ian
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] SiS 1039 900 Ethernet controller - SFE driver hangs boot

[David Clack]

Hi,

 I'm having a problem with the SFE ethernet driver hanging the boot on
B56.

 I've tried three different versions.

 I'm on an ACER Aspire 3004, it has a complete SiS chipset.

 First login screen also crashes also, after that, I login and type gdm,
then it's fine.

 Anyone else having these issues ?

Thanks
  Dave













David Clack

Solaris X86 Evangelist
Senior Systems Engineer 
OEM Software Sales
Sun Microsystems
642, Chinook Ave SE, Ocean Shores,
WA, USA, 98569
Phone +1-360-289-2158
Fax +1-360-289-2091
Mobile +1-206-265-1904
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]















___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

>So you would say the IBM and Red Hat aren't part of the Linux
>community?

Ah I like stating the obvious. IBM and RedHat are not driving the community. 
Yes they are part of the community and no one could deny that but the key is 
that they work within the community's interests. They comply with the 
community's rules, they do not, for example force strategies, usage of tools, 
SCM, processes on the community. Community decides that stuff and everyone in 
the community happily uses it.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> Why are Sun developers not part of the OpenSolaris
> developer community?
>
I have never meant that - I have said Sun in driver's seat of the community 
train (IOW the key decision maker, the one who installs all the pawns and 
directs the pieces and controls the rules of the game) is not acceptable for an 
open project. Sun, in that role, cannot be a part of community. 
 
> The development process sets out rules; and if you
> abide by those rules
> there is nothing that can prevent you from committing
> code.

Who set those rules? What if I have a valid reason to change a rule or two? Why 
can the community not set their own rules? Why is that you take it for granted 
that Sun will do things on behalf of the community? To date how many rules were 
set in stone by the community (exclude Sun)? Why do I keep hearing that Sun 
will setup a SCM, Sun will do this, Sun will do that? Where can I see 
community's (exclude Sun) decisions being taken forward? Examples?
  
> Perhaps I don't understand the word community as you
> understand it;
> but to believe that a community exists of only like
> minded people
> is flawed. 
Community in this context is an entity bound together for a cause. Your analogy 
would lead me to believe that whole world is a community - no distinguishing 
factors, no barriers, but no cause as well. That doesn't make any sense. You 
have to have a concept of a common, well defined, meaningful, non-conflicting 
cause when you consider a community.
 
> But I've glad we've figured out one thing: you and I
> have completely
> different understanding of what a community is and
> particularly what
> the OpenSolaris community is comprised of.  I see it
> as all-inclusive,
> all encompassing; free for all OpenSolaris kindred
> spirits.
> But you, you seem to want to specifically exclude
> Sun, Sun customers
> (Sun employees?) and perhaps others from this
> community.
>

That's because you are missing the "common cause with no conflicting or 
contradictory interests" part from the community. IOW you can have a "hunters 
community" where all people have a single cause - hunt some animal. But you 
cannot have an entity a  part of that community if it has an conflicting goal 
of, say destroying all weapons from the world as that would prevent the hunting 
community from hunting some day although it isn't imminent.

Your definition of community will include all - the hunters, the people who 
destroy weapons, the people who demonstrate against hunting and people who 
don't like people who hunt. That won't make any sense.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[De Togni Giacomo]

[i]Sun is part of the community; so it would be a conflict within
the community in the first place; not one between the community
and Sun.[/i]

Yes and it could be the problem about acceptability by open communities.I would 
think that Sun is a constructive part to became OpenSolaris open and 
competitive,however the external perception its probably different.I would,with 
a simple equation,explain this : Sun released source of Solaris to OpenSolaris 
Community + Sun is a decisional member of this community = OpenSolaris isn't a 
free and open project. I'm skeptic to consider this the best solution so,I 
would to think different ways to increase the level of independence. Could be 
good to change our community to a foundation? Could be good to be involved 
other partners?  If OpenSolaris is free it is not only for Sun market but for 
every market where x86's vendors play a fundamental role.


Giacomo
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Casper . Dik]

>You keep stating Sun is part of community but that is completely wrong
>and more importantly totally unwarranted and detrimental to an Open
>Source project for the reasons I explained already.

I have not seen you explain that in anyway that I would accept.

Why are Sun developers not part of the OpenSolaris developer community?

Or is the community open to individuals working at Sun but not
the company?  Then, read "Individuals at Sun doing their day jobs" for "Sun".

>> The only plausible scenarion, then, is one where Sun
>> wants to prevent the community from doing a particular thing.  But the
>> development process does not appear to allow that.

>Explain this - how? 

The development process sets out rules; and if you abide by those rules
there is nothing that can prevent you from committing code.

Inside Sun this is different; you'll need to make a business case to
work on something; the community does not need to do so.

>Wow that's an incredibly flawed statement. You mix three separate
>entities with separate primary interests, beliefs, resources,
>preferences, needs and risks and make them one community. Too much
>contradiction for further dialogue.

Perhaps I don't understand the word community as you understand it;
but to believe that a community exists of only like minded people
is flawed.  If the OpenSolaris community not also exists of Sun
customers, Sun, people working at Sun, then who are all those people
and what do they want from OpenSolaris?

I live in a community in which is perhaps not very divers, but it
contains lawyers, real estate agent, brokers, actors, photographers,
people who own their homes, people who rent, single parent families,
single persons, unemployed, employed, self-employed.
These are all people in a single community but with vastly different
means and different interests.

But I've glad we've figured out one thing: you and I have completely
different understanding of what a community is and particularly what
the OpenSolaris community is comprised of.  I see it as all-inclusive,
all encompassing; free for all OpenSolaris kindred spirits.
But you, you seem to want to specifically exclude Sun, Sun customers
(Sun employees?) and perhaps others from this community.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ian Collins]

S Destika wrote:

>>Sun is part of the community; so it would be a
>>conflict within
>>the community in the first place; not one between the
>>community
>>and Sun.
>>
>>
>
>You keep stating Sun is part of community but that is completely wrong and 
>more importantly totally unwarranted and detrimental to an Open Source project 
>for the reasons I explained already.
>  
>

So you would say the IBM and Red Hat aren't part of the Linux
community?  Probably every large open source project has at least one
corporation supplying developers.  A big project simply cannot survive
on the efforts of volunteers, unless they have independent means.

>  
>
>>The only plausible scenarion, then, is one where Sun
>>wants to prevent
>>the community from doing a particular thing.  But the
>>development process
>>does not appear to allow that.
>>
>>
>
>Explain this - how? 
>  
>

Nextra?

>>It's a very simple concept but I don't see where the
>>conflict lies.
>>And no, I don't think the OpenSolaris community, Sun
>>and their
>>customers are separate; they are one community.  You
>>continuously
>>want to contrast "the community" with "Sun".
>>
>>
>Wow that's an incredibly flawed statement. You mix three separate entities 
>with separate primary interests, beliefs, resources, preferences, needs and 
>risks and make them one community. Too much contradiction for further dialogue.
> 
>  
>
Don't we all have the same goal, the best OS for our needs? 

I'm still waiting for the details of the 8 boxes you claim not to be
able to install Open Solaris on.

Ian

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Dennis Clarke]

>
> On 3-Feb-07, at 5:29 PM, Alan Hargreaves wrote:
>
>> John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>> I think I like the "Project Emancipation" title
>>> However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned
>>> in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. That bit *MUST*
>>> be reimplemented & shoved in to ON as fast as possible. The rest
>>> is not as important in as far as you can, theoretically, build a
>>> mostly working opensolaris distro without them. The reason why I
>>> posted a libc_i18n rewrite is because I don't want to have that
>>> finished, waiting for the rest of the emancipation project to
>>> finish before getting it in to ON. As soon as libc_i18n is done, I
>>> want it upstreamed
>>>   This message posted from opensolaris.org
>>> ___
>>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>>> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>>
>> There are currently two components that are needed before one can
>> do an open build. The first one is one that has been talked a lot
>> about, the other is only required on SPARC, that is the sparc
>> disassembler.
>>
>> If you want a project that has as it's goal to be able to build the
>> opensolaris sources without encumbered binaries, AND you want this
>> to be able to be done on both SPARC and x86, then both of these
>> need to be addressed.
>>
>> I knwo that SPARC is not generally popular here, but if we are
>> going to do something, it needs to be done correctly.
>
> Agreed.
>
> So i18n and sparc disassembler.  I don't happen to own a SPARC, so
> anyone up to the task? ( unless it can get done in the 60 day try&buy
> period, which I doubt )

  just get an account at Blastwave and you can have all that stuff.


-- 
Dennis Clarke

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> Sun is part of the community; so it would be a
> conflict within
> the community in the first place; not one between the
> community
> and Sun.

You keep stating Sun is part of community but that is completely wrong and more 
importantly totally unwarranted and detrimental to an Open Source project for 
the reasons I explained already.

> The only plausible scenarion, then, is one where Sun
> wants to prevent
> the community from doing a particular thing.  But the
> development process
> does not appear to allow that.

Explain this - how? 
> 
> It's a very simple concept but I don't see where the
> conflict lies.
> And no, I don't think the OpenSolaris community, Sun
> and their
> customers are separate; they are one community.  You
> continuously
> want to contrast "the community" with "Sun".
Wow that's an incredibly flawed statement. You mix three separate entities with 
separate primary interests, beliefs, resources, preferences, needs and risks 
and make them one community. Too much contradiction for further dialogue.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Dennis Clarke]

>> If you want a project that has as it's goal to be
>> able to build the
>> opensolaris sources without encumbered binaries, AND
>> you want this to be
>> able to be done on both SPARC and x86, then both of
>> these need to be
>> addressed.
>
> Completely agreed!
>
>> I knwo that SPARC is not generally popular here, but
>> if we are going to
>> do something, it needs to be done correctly.
>
> +1, now how about those SPARC test boxes for the community? :) Most of us
> are SPARCless due to practicality / economics...
>

  you can get access to most anything you need over at Blastwave

  .. and its a community project

Dennis

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Casper . Dik]

>So let me ask you one thing - Do you guarantee there will be *no*
>conflicts between what Sun wants to do and what Community would like
>to do? If so, on what basis? If so, how is it then different from Sun
>getting bunch of free contributors to do work for Sun's cause? On what
>basis are you saying Sun will compromise business interests to
>entertain community interests?

Sun is part of the community; so it would be a conflict within
the community in the first place; not one between the community
and Sun.

Secondly, I'm hard pressed to think of any such scenario.

Sun employees, of course, will work on the things Sun management
finds important.  Non-Sun contributors will work on things they
want to work on.  And as long as the process is followed, a process
established with input from the community I may add, contributions will
find their way into OpenSolaris.

So when you way "Sun must work on X", Sun will tell you to take a hike
unless Sun believes that it further its business interests to do so.

And when Sun say "The Community should work on X", the community will
tell Sun to stuff it unless there are members in the community who are
eager, willing and competent to do the job.

The only plausible scenarion, then, is one where Sun wants to prevent
the community from doing a particular thing.  But the development process
does not appear to allow that.

If Sun doesn't want a particular thing that is part of OpenSolaris it
could chose not to distribute it in its OpenSolaris based distribution.

>If there are conflicts, are you going to exclude people who have
>conflicting but valid interests?

What type of conflicts?  It would be nice to have some feel for
an example.

>If you don't get this simple a concept - I am not sure what to say.
>Isn't Sun a for-profit organization with customers and with real
>business interests? Isn't the community separate from Sun and their
>customers?

It's a very simple concept but I don't see where the conflict lies.
And no, I don't think the OpenSolaris community, Sun and their
customers are separate; they are one community.  You continuously
want to contrast "the community" with "Sun".

But the community comprises all of the following (in no particular
order):

- Sun Employees
- Sun Customers
- OpenSolaris/Solaris enthusiasts
- OpenSolaris/Solaris developers
- ISVs

As for "free contributors for Sun" also belies the whole concept
of OpenSource.  Solaris is Sun's flagship software product; for
Sun it is an important piece of software; similarly, it's important
for Solaris users.  If a person contributes a bugfix, then it is
of course possible that they do this for altruistic motives, but it is
equally possible that this person wants this bug fixed for his
own benefit.

Customer is nagged by bug X
Bug is low priority for Sun (aka "Sun refuses to fix the bug"
which assumes we actually have time to think about refusing fixes)
Customer fixes bug in OpenSolaris
Next Solaris Express release has bug fixed.
Customer/Constributor benefits directly from work they've done.

And I'll let you in on a secret of mine: the reason why I work on bugs
all over Solaris and not just in my "security area" is because I'm like
that Customer/Contributor.  If it pains me, I file a bug.  If it's not
sufficiently urgent for the owning group to fix it quickly and not
too complicated to fix, I'll fix it myself.  I do this for my benefit,
but Solaris, Sun and Sun's customers all benefit in the process.


>Or was OpenSolaris created to just server Sun and it's
>customer's interests? If that isn't so, even a very ignorant person
>will agree that where there are two entities with probability of
>different interests and goals there is got to be a conflict. And we
>need to ensure that there is an independent body which can do a fair
>job of dealing with those conflicting interests in a way no one feels
>sabotaged. Conflicts are just a reality when you want to achieve
>something with the aid of people whom you don't pay. If you deny
>reality nothing good is going to come out of it.

Why do you believe that there are different goals?  If the people
working on Solaris have different goals than those using Solaris,
something is very wrong indeed.

>See above. Particulars of conflict are not important here - having
>something fair and independent in place to resolve them is. Who
>guarantees that Sun tomorrow will not be bought/run by some evil
>company that will not sabotage community interests?  Heck, even, who
>guarantees Sun will be fair to all given their strong business
>interests?  How?

"What see above"?  There's no substance.  Sun cannot "unpublish"
the source; so when Sun is taken over by an evil empire, then someone
can "fork" the source then and there and form an approrpiate
organization.

As I see it, the only process which can lead to conflicts is
conflicts about what code can be incorporated in OpenSolaris.
For

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Alan Burlison]

Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:


 From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code.  When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
problems that entails?


I dont see how that makes the situation any different, they could
still implement the closed source parts and release them using gplv3
only if we dual license. Same outcome


That's true as well.  I think Simon is saying that he feels that having 
to reimplement the non-GPLv3 parts of Solaris would prevent a sufficient 
barrier to an incompatible fork.  I'm not sure that's true now, and I'm 
pretty sure it won't be a barrier at all at some point in the future.


As I've said before, I haven't fully made up my mind if GPLv3 is a good 
or a bad thing - and as GPLv3 doesn't actually exist yet, I don't think 
anyone can make a definitive statement.  However I'm pretty convinced 
that dual licensing of any sort is not the right course to take, 
irrespective of the licenses involved.


--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Alan Burlison]

S Destika wrote:


If there are conflicts, are you going to exclude people who have
conflicting but valid interests?


Well, we could start by excluding you, if you like.

;-)

--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> even if we had that, the database with the old bugs
> would still need
> to be migrated to the new and unencumbred one, where
> is the win-win
> again?

I thought you would be able to think for yourself that win-win will be for 
future bugs that are reported by the community and to make it simple for you it 
will be due to the community being able to exchange information freely without 
being subject to censoring and Sun being able to hide information to protect 
their customers. Sun can even transform that information to hide only things 
strictly necessary to be hidden and make rest available to the open bug 
database.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[De Togni Giacomo]

[i]Firstly, your point about full control. The CAB is made up of 5 people. 2 
from
Sun, 2 from the pilot project, and 1 from the OSS community at large. That
to me does not equate to full control or a dictatorship. I assume they aren't 
paying Rich :)
[/i]

For me,the problems of the control is not around the type or the number of CAB 
members but around   methodology of decision or management about community 
projects.This is probably a more practical than formal issue.I saw great 
participation around the decision to start kde project and now around rewrite 
libc_i18n.a.This is a great tentative to start taking an identity.I'm shocked 
to see a numerous participation around GPLv3's issue.This isn't waste time but 
a democracy exercise,the foundation of a free community.I prefer to think that 
this community is born in these days. :-)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I don't see why this causes an immediate conflict of
> interest and
> as such it is a strictly hypothetical problem.
You would have to be completely ignorant to say this is a hypothetical problem.
So let me ask you one thing - Do you guarantee there will be *no* conflicts 
between what Sun wants to do and what Community would like to do? If so, on 
what basis? If so, how is it then different from Sun getting bunch of free 
contributors to do work for Sun's cause? On what basis are you saying Sun will 
compromise business interests to entertain community interests?


even if we had a separate entity to control the opensolaris sources,
sun would still be paying most of the developers, and paying customers
needs would still dictate what gets higher proprity. red hat's
engineers do the same
your proposed solution does not solve any problem and adds more red tape
face it engineers working for opensource projects need money to live
just like you, and the companies that pay them get that money from
paying customers. the times where opensouce projects were run by
hippies in a basement in their free time are long gone


If there are conflicts, are you going to exclude people who have conflicting 
but valid interests?

>
> You've pointed us twice to an article about the
> definition of
> conflict of interest.  I don't get it.
If you don't get this simple a concept - I am not sure what to say. Isn't Sun a 
for-profit organization with customers and with real business interests? Isn't 
the community separate from Sun and their customers? Or was OpenSolaris created 
to just server Sun and it's customer's interests? If that isn't so, even a very 
ignorant person will agree that where there are two entities with probability 
of different interests and goals there is got to be a conflict. And we need to 
ensure that there is an independent body which can do a fair job of dealing 
with those conflicting interests in a way no one feels sabotaged. Conflicts are 
just a reality when you want to achieve something with the aid of people whom 
you don't pay. If you deny reality nothing good is going to come out of it.



the ogb, a group of people elected by the community will be that
entity. sun's employees are just part of the community just as
redhat's are part of linux'


> What conflict of interest is there when Sun runs
> Opensolaris?
>
See above. Particulars of conflict are not important here - having something 
fair and independent in place to resolve them is. Who guarantees that Sun 
tomorrow will not be bought/run by some evil company that will not sabotage 
community interests?  Heck, even, who guarantees Sun will be fair to all given 
their strong business interests?  How?

> We don't live with a useless bug database; but
> OpenSolaris does; it is
> quite difficult to export a bug database in a
> meaningful way as in some
> cases there is information public to customers.
>
There you go - a perfect example of conflict of interest - Community has a 
simple interest - get a meaningful and useful bug database. Sun's has a 
conflict - they cannot make information public. Sun wins, community loses. 
Separate those two entities and community can have their own bug database and 
Sun can choose to expose whatever information to their bug database. Win-Win.


even if we had that, the database with the old bugs would still need
to be migrated to the new and unencumbred one, where is the win-win
again?

nacho
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On 2/4/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Bearing in mind your statement about The Wrath Of The Lawyers(tm) I'm
not expecting you to necessarily answer, but I have a question about the
scenarios you outlined above:

 From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code.  When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
problems that entails?


I dont see how that makes the situation any different, they could
still implement the closed source parts and release them using gplv3
only if we dual license. Same outcome


nacho
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> 
> I don't see why this causes an immediate conflict of
> interest and
> as such it is a strictly hypothetical problem.
You would have to be completely ignorant to say this is a hypothetical problem. 
So let me ask you one thing - Do you guarantee there will be *no* conflicts 
between what Sun wants to do and what Community would like to do? If so, on 
what basis? If so, how is it then different from Sun getting bunch of free 
contributors to do work for Sun's cause? On what basis are you saying Sun will 
compromise business interests to entertain community interests?

If there are conflicts, are you going to exclude people who have conflicting 
but valid interests?

> 
> You've pointed us twice to an article about the
> definition of
> conflict of interest.  I don't get it.
If you don't get this simple a concept - I am not sure what to say. Isn't Sun a 
for-profit organization with customers and with real business interests? Isn't 
the community separate from Sun and their customers? Or was OpenSolaris created 
to just server Sun and it's customer's interests? If that isn't so, even a very 
ignorant person will agree that where there are two entities with probability 
of different interests and goals there is got to be a conflict. And we need to 
ensure that there is an independent body which can do a fair job of dealing 
with those conflicting interests in a way no one feels sabotaged. Conflicts are 
just a reality when you want to achieve something with the aid of people whom 
you don't pay. If you deny reality nothing good is going to come out of it.
   
> What conflict of interest is there when Sun runs
> Opensolaris?
>
See above. Particulars of conflict are not important here - having something 
fair and independent in place to resolve them is. Who guarantees that Sun 
tomorrow will not be bought/run by some evil company that will not sabotage 
community interests?  Heck, even, who guarantees Sun will be fair to all given 
their strong business interests?  How?
 
> We don't live with a useless bug database; but
> OpenSolaris does; it is
> quite difficult to export a bug database in a
> meaningful way as in some
> cases there is information public to customers.
>
There you go - a perfect example of conflict of interest - Community has a 
simple interest - get a meaningful and useful bug database. Sun's has a 
conflict - they cannot make information public. Sun wins, community loses. 
Separate those two entities and community can have their own bug database and 
Sun can choose to expose whatever information to their bug database. Win-Win.
 
> Again, you assert there is a conflict of interest;
> yet you fail
> to mention what that conflict is.
> 
See above.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Alan Burlison]

Simon Phipps wrote:

The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing 
redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I 
believe you're required to allow people to do this.


So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed 
under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license 
situation with a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't...


I don't see it as a mess. The reason the assembly exception will be 
present is to allow the distribution of combinations of code under 
incompatible licenses. Remove the exception (which as you say has to be 
possible) and distribution is no longer permitted. I believe this would 
pose a barrier to almost all potential abusers.



Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:

1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception 
is removable


The result would not be distributable with closed binaries and more.


2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL" 
licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)


Not at all - as the exception can be dropped the purists can always have 
their code. They just have to replicated the closed binaries as GPL 
software, which they would want to do anyway. "Just".


Bearing in mind your statement about The Wrath Of The Lawyers(tm) I'm 
not expecting you to necessarily answer, but I have a question about the 
scenarios you outlined above:


From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required 
because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly 
exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code.  When the 
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed 
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop 
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the 
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the 
problems that entails?


Bearing in mind that removal of the existing closed binaries is probably 
going to be one of the areas where the non-Sun community members can 
help us most, because they haven't been tainted, I don't think the 
current situation where you need closed binaries to for a usable 
distribution is going to remain for all that long, or at least I hope 
not.  Relying on closed binaries or non-GPLv3-licensed source to 
preserve a unified source base would seem to be a little risky, if not 
downright foolish.


--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Doug Scott]

> If you continue to repeatedly miss the point it
> becomes frustrating for me to repeat it over and
> over. OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit
> organization should not be in sole control and
> dictatorship of any OSS project for simple reasons.
> That simply cannot be a good thing - there is
> something called conflict of interest - go read about
> it -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest .

I saw a lot of postings, and I did not want to miss out on the fun. So I though 
I would
add to the ravings

Sorry, I try to avoid wikipedia :) You will have to use your own words to make 
your point.

Firstly, your point about full control. The CAB is made up of 5 people. 2 from
Sun, 2 from the pilot project, and 1 from the OSS community at large. That
to me does not equate to full control or a dictatorship. I assume they aren't 
paying Rich :)

Your point about a "profit" company should not be in sole control of a OSS. I 
ask why???
The is nothing in the words "Open" "Source" "Software", which would say Sun is 
doing anything
wrong. There are many examples of this happening and working well. Don't try to 
tell me that
Red Hat aren't pulling Fedora's strings, Canonical - Ubuntu, Novell - OpenSUSE 
etc. I don't
think it is fair to make Sun jump through hoops, others don't. Especially 
considering they have
produced more OSS and OSH than all of the above added together with IBM and 
HP  

Is there more Sun could do to open up OpenSolaris to the community. Yeah sure. 
Does it keep me awake at nights. No... They have come along way with 
OpenSolaris in just over a year. Lets not lose sight of the progress, and die 
with the negative perceptions. I don't know of any other
commercial product the size of OpenSolaris being changed to OSS by any other 
company. To add
to that they have netbeans, openoffice, parts of the JES stack, Java etc. That 
is a lot of effort
and pain for a company which has been up to recently been making losses, and 
reducing their workforce. 

Doug
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Casper . Dik]

>a) Community and Sun are not the same - Sun is a for-profit
organization not community.

But Sun is part of the community; or is "for-profit" somehow
in conflict with being part of a community?

I don't see why this causes an immediate conflict of interest and
as such it is a strictly hypothetical problem.

It's also a fallacy to assume that there is a common goal set for
a community.

You've pointed us twice to an article about the definition of
conflict of interest.  I don't get it.

What conflict of interest is there when Sun runs Opensolaris?

>c) So you cannot tolerate complexities but you can live with a totally
>useless bug database? How e lse on earth are we going to get a
>meaningful bug database without resolving what Sun needs to do (
>Protect customer information ) and what Community wishes to do (Freely
>exchange information)?   You have to understand that root of all this
>evil is ignoring the conflict of interest situation in first place.

We don't live with a useless bug database; but OpenSolaris does; it is
quite difficult to export a bug database in a meaningful way as in some
cases there is information public to customers.

Again, you assert there is a conflict of interest; yet you fail
to mention what that conflict is.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Yes, I miss the point.  I trust greed modified by even the least
bit of long-term view (like not getting into legal trouble) in most
cases far more than either idealism or community as a predictable
motivator, because idealism has excused more harm than greed,
and neighborhood busybodies have hurt more people than corporations.

I also distrust those who distrust a for-profit organization that's doing
_everything_it_said_it_would_ just because it's a for-profit organization.
There are _already_ outsiders participating at all levels.  If that's not
good enough, too bad.  At this time, I see no practical benefit from what
you want except that it would make you and those who feel similarly perhaps
_feel_ better; indeed, I suspect many would still find other excuses not to
participate.

Because when it comes down to it, regarding OpenSolaris, I trust
what's been _done_ so far more than I trust either me or you.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Alan Burlison]

Stephen Lau wrote:



here's my vote for a project name:
Project Emancipation 


Surely "Project Enduring Freedom" would be more appropriate?

;-)

--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])

[Richard L. Hamilton]

[...]
> ourselves.  I also care
> about Apple because the presence of our technology on
> their platform
> greatly expands the community for that particular
> technology.  Do I want
> DTrace on my phone?  You bet -- and at the moment,
> Apple's looking like
> the most likely vector to get us there...

Any thoughts about a forum that's either neutral or equally welcoming
to (alphabetically) Apple, FreeBSD, and Solaris users of DTrace?

Maybe dtrace-discuss is good enough for now, but once there
are significant numbers of Apple and FreeBSD users (and if those
who've led their respective efforts would also participate from time
to time), something new might be in order.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

> for the record MySQL is on the same boat isn't it?
> but that hasnt
> stopped them from becoming  a mainstream database
> among little
> projects

There are plenty other bad examples :) But seriously there is no dearth of 
people in OSS community not liking it and MySQL AB continues to be the single 
largest entity which contributes code. Read this interesting thread - 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-03/msg01089.php
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Open interfaces probably have pages in sections 3c and 3head of the
manual, but if there's support for multiple environments where their
requirements clash (generic, xpg4, xpg6, what else?), that may
either not tell the whole story, or may require paying very close
attention (and probably looking at SUSv2/3 as well (see www.unix.org or
www.opengroup.org).  Not to mention
that it all probably needs to be thread-safe.  I could probably make some
more specific guesses, but I don't recall that anyone's mentioned that
they've read up on "clean room" reimplementation practices (I haven't
recently), so I don't want to mess things up by saying too much.
No, I've never seen the source for this stuff, but I could probably tell
a lot more by looking at libc_i18n than would be helpful to post here.
So I won't talk about it further until there's something in place that would
provide guidance how to do this without stepping on anyone's toes.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest - Read on it please. I keep 
re-iterating the sole aim is to get rid of  that and let the community act in 
their own interests. BTW community people are grown up adults and can decide 
what is best for them.


for the record MySQL is on the same boat isn't it? but that hasnt
stopped them from becoming  a mainstream database among little
projects

nacho
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

a) Community and Sun are not the same - Sun is a for-profit organization not 
community. 
b) I never said Sun be excluded from the train - I was just saying let 
community drive the train.
c) So you cannot tolerate complexities but you can live with a totally useless 
bug database? How else on earth are we going to get a meaningful bug database 
without resolving what Sun needs to do (Protect customer information ) and what 
Community wishes to do (Freely exchange information)?   You have to understand 
that root of all this evil is ignoring the conflict of interest situation in 
first place.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest - Read on it please. I keep 
re-iterating the sole aim is to get rid of  that and let the community act in 
their own interests. BTW community people are grown up adults and can decide 
what is best for them.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[S Destika]

If you continue to repeatedly miss the point it becomes frustrating for me to 
repeat it over and over. OSS people value it to no ends that for-profit 
organization should not be in sole control and dictatorship of any OSS project 
for simple reasons. That simply cannot be a good thing - there is something 
called conflict of interest - go read about it - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest .
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Ignacio Marambio Catán]

[...]

pax ??? pax is an archiver.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaX



http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/pax.html

based on the tar format with cpio legacy support.

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

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> Here is what I think should be done for the project
> as a whole to succeed as a open source project
> thriving on its own agendas, passion, direction and
> innovation.
> 
> Job #1 - Get rid of the conflict of interest
> Sun wants to make certain changes by following
> certain processes and community has other interests
> and wants to do things their way. Sun cannot act in
> community's interest solely and equally fairly
> community must not be forced to act in Sun's
> interests (whatever they may be and however noble the
> cause). 

I don't work for Sun, but except for a bit of streamlining,
some more progress on getting SCM out, and some few
trusted non-Sun committers, I'm just fine with the process,
and indeed have learned a few things from it (I hope).

> The presence of conflict of interests is evident from
> the tensions and uncertainty that the ksh93
> integration project has created. 

Tensions and uncertainty?  Huh.  I bet some internal stuff
was at least as ugly, just that nobody ever got to see the
details.  And I think you're forgetting that it's also a
learning experience for all participants, from which I'd
expect future externally-initiated projects will benefit.

> So create an independent OpenSolaris.org foundation
> and let reasonable non-Sun people head and drive it.
> (You want level headed folks here - not the hot head
> techies.)
> 
> Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure,
> processes and other things for setting up a platform
> for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM,
> Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)
> 
> Let the community decide what is good and what is bad
> for them. Let them define the processes. Let them
> start and manage sub-projects based on meritocracy. 
> 
> Let the foundation have a source tree of their own
> separate from Sun's. The idea is to let community
> drive everything. Benefit will be that people will
> feel ownership of the projects and the freedom to
> make their own decisions without conflict of interest
> and other bureaucracy will bring in lots of amazing
> things.
> 
> Job #3 - Establish a protocol for sharing and
> collaborating between the foundation and Sun. 
> 
> This will include things such as open bug database
> for the foundation  which apart from being fed by the
> community will also have a link from Sun's bug
> database. Sun employees could for instance publish
> the bugs they deem fit for the community to be able
> to help with to the open bug database.  No one gets
> to live with a ridiculous bug database!
> 
> Establish how and when code drops will occur from Sun
> to the foundation and vice-versa. Sun can take the
> changes from foundation code base as and when they
> wish. Community can benefit from the changes that
> happen within Sun.
> 
> Idea is to build a bridge so things could flow to and
> fro without stepping on each other's toes and without
> generating conflicts. Sun can do whatever they want
> to their code base and make it available at the end
> of the day to the foundation. Community need not be
> burdened with Sun's own processes and interests and
> they can do what they like and care about. Sun can
> still choose what community changes go in to their
> code base and when. Of course Sun employees would
> hang out on the foundation's mailing lists and have
> their say and community would have a open dialogue
> with them to sort things out so everyone benefits.
> 
> I know this places a lot of burden and importance on
> getting the bridge and protocols right and there may
> be a little rework involved but in the end it is the
> right thing to do. It will bring in lot more
> contributors, lot more progress all at an amazing
> pace.

To your 2nd and 3rd points, while that's happening now
in some sense (with the PowerPC port), I just don't
_care_ who runs the show, as long as things get done.
You don't think things are getting done fast enough, or
that you have enough influence on how they get done.
I think the pace at which they're getting done is generally
improving, and am satisfied that _how_ they get done
is mostly correct (and open to _constructive_ criticism,
even if not necessarily with regard to who runs things).

So I just don't see _anything_ you could do if things were
different that you can't do _now_ if you actually _wanted_
to do more and talk less.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> > >
> > x86 hardware support has been steadily improving
> over
> > the last couple of
> > years and the rate of improvement has accelerated
> in
> > the past year.  I
> > have only failed to install on one x64 system (and
> I
> > have done a lot of
> > installs) and that was an HP DL380.
> > 
> > So the answer is x86 hardware support is being
> very
> > actively fixed.
> 
> Well - Sigh. I am saying that the rate at which
> things (every thing where Sun doesn't have active
> business interest but community can grow and benefit
> from it) are improving is too excruciatingly slow
> compared to what happens with other Open OSes and we
> got to figure out  a way to speed it up and the only
> way is to involve the community actively.

AFAIK, Sun doesn't _make_ any laptops (although I think they
resell a Tadpole or somesuch).  Yet there's been a lot of
laptop support added (although there's still lots more to do).

There is simply no way to look at each individual thing that's
been done already and say it was only done to make $$ for Sun.

Now obviously they want to make $$ somewhere, or they won't
be around forever.  But I think just maybe they've realized that
mindshare now pays off in $$ later.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

I've seen more domineering, tyrannical behavior in "voluntary"
neighborhood improvement associations than in for-profit businesses.
And I'm quite sure I could find in writing times that one of the Linux
bigwigs has in effect said "not only no, but _HELL_ no!" to something.

The good thing about making money is that at least it shows someone
is willing to spend it for what you offer.

The good thing about red tape is it keeps garbage out; once something
gets in, it works.  That doesn't have to mean that things _have_ to happen
all that much slower, it just means you work in a private branch until you're 
done,
resync, and then you better be prepared to show that what you've got is valuable
to someone, doesn't break or degrade anything else (or that you've solved that
too), and is maintainable.

I'd _really_ like to see a count of x86/x64 hardware support new from Solaris 10
on; I bet it's a lot more than those that think x86 is being ignored would 
believe.
Even better would be a bar graph by month, with explanations for some of the
peaks (such as if a bunch of drivers were aquired or adopted from the same 
source
pretty much all at once).  I'd guess they'd show steady or even increasing 
progress.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Simon Phipps]

I will dare to stray into FOSS licensing for a short time without  
protective clothing but

(a) I can't keep doing it or my lawyers will bet me senseless on Monday
(b) I am required to observe that nothing here is intended as, or  
should be construed to be, legal advice, it is all my opinions alone.


On Feb 4, 2007, at 10:13, Shawn Walker wrote:


Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a
combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to
approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception
language we use.

Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as pessimistic. The FSF
members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere near as random as
people have been suggesting on this list.


Yes, I'm aware of what they're doing with the GPLv3. However,  
considering the fsf themselves urges people to not use the LGPL  
whenever possible, I find it hard to believe they really have the  
best interests at heart whenever they don't even like their own  
license.
Not only that, they've always said in the past that it is better  
for people to use "standard license terms" and that exception  
clauses are "effectively a modification of the license."


Yes, Mr Stallman's antipathy for his own license has struck many as  
contradictory over the years. However, he has taken the time during  
the GPLv3 drafting process to propose an LGPLv3 which turns out  
actually to be the GPLv3 plus an extensive assembly exception[1].  
This has signalled to some of us that the path to compatibility (or  
at least co-existence) lays in the direction of use of exceptions.  
Indeed, section 7 of the current draft[2] (this will change in the  
next draft BTW) appears to be a list providing the scope for  
acceptable exceptions.


Additionally, some people have said that the FSF has been  
discouraging the use of exception clauses due to their refusal to  
provide a standard way to do it.


As the evidence I cite above indicates, that does not appear to be  
the case (any more, if it was before, which I am not so sure).


The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing  
preventing redistributors of the software from removing that  
clause. In fact, I believe you're required to allow people to do this.


So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically  
relicensed under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a  
dual-license situation with a single license! Do we really want  
this mess? I don't...


I don't see it as a mess. The reason the assembly exception will be  
present is to allow the distribution of combinations of code under  
incompatible licenses. Remove the exception (which as you say has to  
be possible) and distribution is no longer permitted. I believe this  
would pose a barrier to almost all potential abusers.


Not only that, members of the debian-legal mailing list have  
claimed that "GPL+exception" code cannot be linked against "pure  
GPL" code [3]. So again, what benefit would this bring us? We  
wouldn't be able to link against "pure GPLv3" code since we  
wouldn't really be that way. So we would still have some of the  
same issues we do today...


I am sure there would be the same sort of flamefest on debian-legal  
as we've seen here. I don't believe that would be sufficient either  
to stop a Debian-based GNU/OpenSolaris (Nexenta++ - or "Solubuntu",  
perhaps?) In the main I'm not too worried about meeting the demands  
of self-appointed pseudo-lawyers unless I can do so without  
substantial compromise. I /am/ interested in accommodating as many of  
the philosophical outlooks of the FOSS movement within the  
OpenSolaris community.




Finally, yes, there are other projects that have done the  
"exception thing" and it has actually upset some "GPL purists", are  
they part of the FSF? I don't think so, but I was never talking  
about official FSF organization employees.


Some example of angst over GPL + exception:

See comments left on this project:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnutls/

A whole thread over it on the Apache lists:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200512.mbox/% 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


I'm very familiar with the situation at Harmony and it doesn't worry  
me much as a precedent. The situation there was of an Apache project  
wanting an FSF project under the GPL with an exception generally  
considered ideal for the technology involved to drop the GPL (or  
rather dual-license under BSD) so Apache could take all their code.  
We used the same Classpath exception for Sun Java last year and it  
received rapturous acclaim from the Free software community, and the  
fully-open Java ME community has already seen 4 platform ports I  
believe.




Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:

1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the  
exception is removable


The result would not be distributable with closed binaries and more.

2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible w

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Alan Burlison]

Shawn Walker wrote:


Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:

1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the
exception is removable 2) GPL+exception being essentially
incompatible with "pure GPL" licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this
somehow?) 3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have

You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking about
licensing when there are so many other things to address that are far
more crucial to the success of this project?


Thanks for the nice summary of the issues with exception clauses, and +1 
to the last paragraph :-)


--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Peter Tribble]

On 2/4/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Here is what I think should be done for the project as a whole to succeed as a 
open source project thriving on its own agendas, passion, direction and 
innovation.

Job #1 - Get rid of the conflict of interest
Sun wants to make certain changes by following certain processes and community 
has other interests and wants to do things their way. Sun cannot act in 
community's interest solely and equally fairly community must not be forced to 
act in Sun's interests (whatever they may be and however noble the cause).


Why do you think "the community" and "Sun" are separate? This is supposed to
be a single community, with Sun being an inclusive member and having the same
rights and privileges as anybody else. I don't think in terms of us and them, I
think in terms of "we" - all, as one.


The presence of conflict of interests is evident from the tensions and 
uncertainty that the ksh93 integration project has created.

So create an independent OpenSolaris.org foundation and let reasonable non-Sun 
people head and drive it. (You want level headed folks here - not the hot head 
techies.)


So you're suggesteing that Sun be deliberately excluded from any input into
the direction of OpenSolaris, despite the fact that it is Sun who gave us the
code in the first place, are responsible for the financial and personnel
resources sustaining it, and are - currently - the main consumer?

Sorry, but people from Sun mustn't be excluded from the processes.


Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure, processes and other things 
for setting up a platform for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM, 
Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)


Why do you insist on having an external entity create a closed system
that duplicates what we already have, when the intention is that the
current system is opened to *all*?

And note that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prevent you - or
anybody else for that matter from doing this. It's one of the fundamental
principles of open source that anyone can fork the code and create their
community around it if they wish. If you want to do this, go right ahead,
rool up your sleeves, and get on with it.


Let the community decide what is good and what is bad for them. Let them define 
the processes. Let them start and manage sub-projects based on meritocracy.


The community does. That's exactly how it works now. Anyone can
propose a project. Sun and external members equally. The project creation
process is deliberately lightweight so as to impose no barriers to entry.

There is still a grey area here that needs to be resolved, in that there is no
guaranteed right to integrate. There will be projects that certain sections
of the wider comunity feel are important that Sun are unable to accept
(and I would expect their reasons to be entirely valid) as part of Solaris
proper, and we need to find a way to deal with that.


Let the foundation have a source tree of their own separate from Sun's. The 
idea is to let community drive everything. Benefit will be that people will 
feel ownership of the projects and the freedom to make their own decisions 
without conflict of interest and other bureaucracy will bring in lots of 
amazing things.


Why enforce separation and exclude Sun from their own source code? We're trying
to build an all-inclusive community here, and bring down the barriers, not erect
new walls that prevent people from contributing.


Job #3 - Establish a protocol for sharing and collaborating between the 
foundation and Sun.


Why bother? Why require two organizations and a load of bureaucratic and
process complexity between the two when we can have a single open
organization and just get on with the job of making the product better?


This will include things such as open bug database for the foundation  which 
apart from being fed by the community will also have a link from Sun's bug 
database. Sun employees could for instance publish the bugs they deem fit for 
the community to be able to help with to the open bug database.  No one gets to 
live with a ridiculous bug database!


No, you're suggesting we have two incompatible bug databases, which just makes
matters worse.

--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] CAB (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Simon Phipps]

On Feb 4, 2007, at 12:08, Joerg Schilling wrote:


UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But it does -- OpenSolaris is separate from Solaris. And the CAB  
does drive OpenSolaris. Yes, the fact is that lots of people in  
the community are Sun engineers, but we actually need them to head  
the effort -- there are extremely few people outside of Sun that  
know the product well enough to be able to effectively contribute.




The CAB needs a re-election. Its legislative period ended
nearly one year ago. If we like to take the CAB for serious,
we cannot allow a democratic vehicle to be replaced by some
kind of "monarchism".


I (and I believe the rest of the CAB/OGB) completely agree.


It may make sense to exted the next legislative period to a longer
time frame but we should take the fact very seriously that is was
elected for a limited time only.


The CAB/OGB has reluctantly agreed to have its term extended to cover  
the OGB elections. I for one want these to happen as soon as  
possible. I think we're waiting for the voting software.


S.

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] CAB (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Joerg Schilling]

UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But it does -- OpenSolaris is separate from Solaris. And the CAB does drive 
> OpenSolaris. Yes, the fact is that lots of people in the community are Sun 
> engineers, but we actually need them to head the effort -- there are 
> extremely few people outside of Sun that know the product well enough to be 
> able to effectively contribute.
>

The CAB needs a re-election. Its legislative period ended
nearly one year ago. If we like to take the CAB for serious,
we cannot allow a democratic vehicle to be replaced by some
kind of "monarchism".

It may make sense to exted the next legislative period to a longer
time frame but we should take the fact very seriously that is was 
elected for a limited time only.

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

[osol-discuss] SCM thoughts (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Joerg Schilling]

UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But that's exactly what's being worked on. What do you think the whole SCM 
> switch from Teamware to Mercurial is? That's only for OpenSolaris - Solaris 
> retains the internal mechanisms.

I fear that Sun is also switching away from SCCS although it would be
not too complex (IMHO less complex than a SCM change) to make SCCS 
aware of the needed features:

-   make sccs aware of directory trees

-   Add a project root tag (Env var)

-   Add a project root related lock to allow
"atomic" commands on the whole source tree

-   Let sccs(1) use libfind to traverse the
directory tree

-   Add something like mr-numbers to be attached to specific
SIDs but that also allows to check out:

-   all files from a source tree that carry this tag 
and to use exactly the SID that the tag is attached to.

-   all files from a source tree that carry this tag
ot a "new" tag and to use the latest SID for every file.

-   Add network support to sccs(1). This could be done in a simple
way by modfiying the source for "rmt" (from star) or "rscsi"
(from cdrtools) andusing the ssh transport.

The advantage of sccs is that it is very stable (no known file lossage
caused by SCCS during the past 30 years) and uses an easy to understand
(and thus modifyable by humans in case of trouble) file format.

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] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Joerg Schilling]

"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2/3/07, S Destika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well there is only one Linux the kernel which Linus releases. All other 
> > changes are development branches and eventually all acceptable stuff gets 
> > merged in mainline. I don't think you understand how Linux development 
> > works at all.
>
> ohh, i think i do, let me give you one more example, check a project
> called grsecurity, it is a set of kernel patches to implement PAX,
> RBAC and other stuff, that is not in any of the developement branches

pax ??? pax is an archiver.

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/pax.html

based on the tar format with cpio legacy support.

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] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[Casper . Dik]

>So i18n and sparc disassembler.  I don't happen to own a SPARC, so  
>anyone up to the task? ( unless it can get done in the 60 day try&buy  
>period, which I doubt )

I would argue that there is little need to actually have a SPARC to
write a SPARC disassembly routine.  All you need is SPARC binaries several
GB of which you can easily download from Sun.  As long as you write the
assembler portably.

Then, you can finish the remainder on an actual SPARC; that shouldn't
use all 60 days.

But in reality, we need this pool of SPARC build systems; a couple
of T2000s/T1000s with virtual domains would seem very suitable.

Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:

[Joerg Schilling]

Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a  
> combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to  
> approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception  
> language we use.

We had a similar discussion 25 months ago when the CDDL was set up.
I am using a reverse "exception" for the CDDL. libscg (the poratble SCSI
transport library) is under CDDL but bay only be used by OSI approved code
and not by closed source software.

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] Re: Project Proposal: libc_i18n.a rewrite.

[John Sonnenschein]

On 3-Feb-07, at 5:29 PM, Alan Hargreaves wrote:


John Sonnenschein wrote:

I think I like the "Project Emancipation" title
However, as for starting with all of closed bins, as I mentioned  
in the initial proposal, libc_i18n.a comes first. That bit *MUST*  
be reimplemented & shoved in to ON as fast as possible. The rest  
is not as important in as far as you can, theoretically, build a  
mostly working opensolaris distro without them. The reason why I  
posted a libc_i18n rewrite is because I don't want to have that  
finished, waiting for the rest of the emancipation project to  
finish before getting it in to ON. As soon as libc_i18n is done, I  
want it upstreamed

  This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org


There are currently two components that are needed before one can  
do an open build. The first one is one that has been talked a lot  
about, the other is only required on SPARC, that is the sparc  
disassembler.


If you want a project that has as it's goal to be able to build the  
opensolaris sources without encumbered binaries, AND you want this  
to be able to be done on both SPARC and x86, then both of these  
need to be addressed.


I knwo that SPARC is not generally popular here, but if we are  
going to do something, it needs to be done correctly.


Agreed.

So i18n and sparc disassembler.  I don't happen to own a SPARC, so  
anyone up to the task? ( unless it can get done in the 60 day try&buy  
period, which I doubt )

___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[UNIX admin]

> That isn't true.
> 
> The plan is for everyone to use the same gate, the
> same SCM.  That's a large 
> part of why the work is taking so long.  It's not
> setting up a new system 
> for new people, it's migrating a very large number of
> existing people and 
> tools to a new (and substantially different) system.

OK, I stand corrected then. Thanks for the correction.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?

[Shawn Walker]

> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace
> the LGPL with a  
> combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would
> expect us to  
> approach the FSF and get their advice and support for
> the exception  
> language we use.
> 
> Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as
> pessimistic. The FSF  
> members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere
> near as random as  
> people have been suggesting on this list.
> 
> S.

Yes, I'm aware of what they're doing with the GPLv3. However, considering the 
fsf themselves urges people to not use the LGPL whenever possible, I find it 
hard to believe they really have the best interests at heart whenever they 
don't even like their own license.

Not only that, they've always said in the past that it is better for people to 
use "standard license terms" and that exception clauses are "effectively a 
modification of the license." [1]


Additionally, some people have said that the FSF has been discouraging the use 
of exception clauses due to their refusal to provide a standard way to do it. 
[2]

The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing 
redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I believe 
you're required to allow people to do this.

So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed under 
just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license situation with 
a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't...

Not only that, members of the debian-legal mailing list have claimed that 
"GPL+exception" code cannot be linked against "pure GPL" code [3]. So again, 
what benefit would this bring us? We wouldn't be able to link against "pure 
GPLv3" code since we wouldn't really be that way. So we would still have some 
of the same issues we do today... 

Finally, yes, there are other projects that have done the "exception thing" and 
it has actually upset some "GPL purists", are they part of the FSF? I don't 
think so, but I was never talking about official FSF organization employees.

Some example of angst over GPL + exception:

See comments left on this project:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnutls/

A whole thread over it on the Apache lists:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200512.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:

1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception is 
removable
2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL" licensed code 
(maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)
3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have

You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking about licensing 
when there are so many other things to address that are far more crucial to the 
success of this project?

-Shawn

[1] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050325novalis.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
[3] 
http://groups.google.com.au/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/aca7701996f6/2ad34b376ecae587?lnk=st&q=%22not+really+gpl%22+exception&rnum=1&hl=en#2ad34b376ecae587
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3?])

[Bryan Cantrill]

> Seeing as how CDDL has introduced a point of contention (rightly or 
> wrongly), I haven't seen a strong argument for its continued existence, 
> other than it is in keeping with Sun's historical tendency for NIH (yes, 
> I expect some flamage for that). Apple was mentioned as a point for the 
> CDDL, as they supposedly wouldn't have used dtrace or zfs otherwise. 
> Well, Apple has tended to do whatever it takes to use the technology 
> that's available, and that has included using GPL'd software. If they're 
> telling you that they would forsake the advantages of dtrace and zfs if 
> it's GPL'd, then they're lying.  And if they think they can hope to 
> duplicate either of those projects, then they're full of crap, because 
> they have neither the engineering numbers or talent to do it. And 
> finally, I'm not sure what you're expecting, but Apple has a terrible 
> history of contributing anything to open source projects. So... why do 
> you care about Apple? Aren't they changing their name to iPods'r'Us? 
> Honestly, who gives a flying fig about Apple? (...as I type this from my 
> Ubuntu-converted Macbook)

I do.  Apple has given us more and deeper technical feedback on the 
implementation of DTrace than anyone else.  We're not looking for Apple
to necessarily extend DTrace in completely novel ways, but having the 
code examined by a second group of eyes from a completely disjoint
background has been very useful to us -- and in doing this, they have 
found some bugs that, even if minor, we missed ourselves.  I also care
about Apple because the presence of our technology on their platform
greatly expands the community for that particular technology.  Do I want
DTrace on my phone?  You bet -- and at the moment, Apple's looking like
the most likely vector to get us there...

- Bryan

--
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development.   http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[Richard Lowe]

UNIX admin wrote:

Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure,
processes and other things for setting up a platform
for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM,
Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)


But that's exactly what's being worked on. What do you think the whole SCM 
switch from Teamware to Mercurial is? That's only for OpenSolaris - Solaris 
retains the internal mechanisms.


That isn't true.

The plan is for everyone to use the same gate, the same SCM.  That's a large 
part of why the work is taking so long.  It's not setting up a new system 
for new people, it's migrating a very large number of existing people and 
tools to a new (and substantially different) system.


It's also worth noting that while people keeping saying that the SCM "isn't 
there", it *IS* there for two consolidations (JDS and the CCD) both of whom 
have their live, one-and-only, real gate on opensolaris.org, on the outside, 
visible to all.


-- Rich
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[UNIX admin]

> Job #2 - Have the foundation create infrastructure,
> processes and other things for setting up a platform
> for people to collaborate. (Mailing lists, SCM,
> Commit process, patch management, reviews, etc.)

But that's exactly what's being worked on. What do you think the whole SCM 
switch from Teamware to Mercurial is? That's only for OpenSolaris - Solaris 
retains the internal mechanisms.

> Let the community decide what is good and what is bad
> for them. Let them define the processes. Let them
> start and manage sub-projects based on meritocracy. 

Isn't that what we're doing? Or is your problem actually with the fact that 
OpenSolaris is being protected from "make it look and behave like Linux at the 
expense of compatibility" changes?

> Let the foundation have a source tree of their own
> separate from Sun's. The idea is to let community
> drive everything. Benefit will be that people will
> feel ownership of the projects and the freedom to
> make their own decisions without conflict of interest
> and other bureaucracy will bring in lots of amazing
> things.

But it does -- OpenSolaris is separate from Solaris. And the CAB does drive 
OpenSolaris. Yes, the fact is that lots of people in the community are Sun 
engineers, but we actually need them to head the effort -- there are extremely 
few people outside of Sun that know the product well enough to be able to 
effectively contribute.

> This will include things such as open bug database
> for the foundation  which apart from being fed by the
> community will also have a link from Sun's bug
> database. Sun employees could for instance publish
> the bugs they deem fit for the community to be able
> to help with to the open bug database.  No one gets
> to live with a ridiculous bug database!

That's exactly how it works right now. What exactly are your issues with the 
current bug database? Do you have any concrete suggestions? "A rediculous bug 
database" doesn't actually detail what your issue with her (the database) is.

I know that I've been involved in several cases where I've made suggestions and 
those were either filed *for me* as RFEs (I didn't feel competent enough to 
work on them myself), or the people from the community got involved and 
solicited me for more feedback. And most of the suggestions I've made so far 
have either been accepted and will be implemented, and some of those I will be 
implementing myself. I've even made arrangements for a sponsor.

I'm still unclear on whether you actually tried to contribute to OpenSolaris, 
and whether or not you have any code contributions and fixes.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)

[UNIX admin]

> Because as I have said hundred times or so - the
> process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and dictated by
> Sun based on their interests instead of community
> inspired - not something I can work with. Also it is
> too slow and additionally suffers from unfair
> prioritization according to Sun's interests - it is
> impossible to be of practical use - see all those
> Solaris bugs open since 1999.

I don't understand. If you work on a bug and request a sponsor, all the sponsor 
has to do is audit your code. So how does priorization come into play? If you 
are the one working on something, how fast it gets done depends on you. Or did 
I miss something?

Have you actually tried?
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org