On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for
that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
a BSD license.
Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you
bring
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for
that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
a BSD license.
Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for
that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
a BSD license.
Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you
bring
If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something
into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and
they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA.
Scratch the license it under BSD; there's no requirement at all for
that;
Sponsors are an artifact resulting from our lack of an external SCM.
Even with a sponsor, every non-Sun employee that wants to contribute
code to OpenSolaris must sign the CA. Period. You have to get that BSD
license out of your head. It does not affect the process in any way.
You must
From where I see it, the participation issue is due to a process
that comes pretty close to making someone a unpaid Sun employee - of
sorts. To even have a contribution considered, I have to sign the
Contributor Agreement. That agreement is with Sun Microsystems Inc,
not OpenSolairs.ORG.
It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base,
I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights
out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a
one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open
Shawn Walker wrote:
Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite
it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it
either despite compatibility of the licenses.
The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process respectively.
What's difficult about the
On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
Sonnenschein wrote:
If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
promoting Solaris instead
of that other kernel, and they would if we went
gpl3, that would be
more helpful to the project than any
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
Sonnenschein wrote:
If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
promoting Solaris instead
of that other kernel, and they would if we went
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate
CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that
GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing
alone is not enough, but still will be helpful
Not true. All contributions require you to sign a CA. We need to be
sure that you either wrote the code or have the right to it. We don't
want to run afoul of hidden patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Correct. If the code is a pull, i.e., a Sun employee is pulling
outside code into OpenSolaris, then a CA isn't required because a) all
Sun employees sign a similar agreement when they join; and b) all code
that comes in via this route undergoes a more extensive legal review.
(We have an
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
knowingly, without a
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
knowingly, without a
On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source
base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living
daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's
mostly a
We don't. I was being hypothetical.
Shawn Walker wrote:
OpenSolaris. The problem is pulling in GPLv3-only
files --- those won't
mix with CDDL. (The GPLv3 files already in
OpenSolaris have the
assembly exception which allows them to mix with
incoming CDDL files.
But if incoming GPLv3
Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?
In my opinion,yes
And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least
we
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include
the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't
As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee
doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For
the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A
BSD license does not give you a free pass.
For the Sun employee doing a pull, like
On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee
doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For
the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A
BSD license does not
Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code
into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code
licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will
ship in a Sun product.
That's absolutely not the case. There's a
Having read this thread in full, and the other one too,
(http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=23034tstart=0)
I'm going to add my two cents:
First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the Linux kernel cannot change. He
cannot change the license from GPLv2 to anything else. The
First, as Linus pointed out, the license for the
Linux kernel cannot change. He cannot change the
license from GPLv2 to anything else. The authors of
the code retain copyright, have only released it
under the GPLv2, and he does not have the
manpower/ability to track down every single
--- Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly, and it is very important that we have the assurance of a
copyright assignment for the same reasons the Free Software
Foundation requires one if you contribute to GCC, etc.
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
future. Also, you should realize that some people will just not want
to release their copyright (something about getting paid).
My understanding of Sun's CA is that one doesn't release one's
copyright; one assigns the same rights to another party
Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with the
caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well as
rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part of
a proprietary license or even an onerous license at any time in the
future. Also, you
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'm going to agree to getting copyright attribution, but with
the
caveat that there needs to be a very easy way to do that, as well
as
rock solid assurances that the contributed code won't become part
of
a proprietary license or even an onerous license
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
GPL or CDDL is worthless mouth flapping with this, closed_bins
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
We can't have opensolaris without this; it's one reason Linux
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 10:30 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
Get rid of the Sun Contributor Agreement. CDDL is OK. I would be
better under GPLv2, but I understand if you can't for legal reasons.
+1
contributor agreement's gotta go.
... I don't get this.
The FSF have
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process respectively.
What's difficult about the closed bins apart from
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process respectively.
What's difficult about
Rubbish.
It can be reimplemented. Are we seriously to believe that sun doesn't
have the enigneering muscle to reimplement 150 small utility
functions?The good chunk of closed bins can be taken from gnu/bsd,
there's only a couple libs (ipsec is one, and the critical one that
you can't
John Sonnenschein writes:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's difficult about the closed bins apart from not being able
to port to a different architecture or chance the bits in closed_bins?
Nobody likes the closed_bins; but it's not under our control
James Carlson wrote:
Rewriting them is under anyone's control, provided that the person
involved isn't tainted.
And that is what makes it hard for *Sun* to rewrite these bits - if the
spec/implementation is covered by a NDA, then the very people who would be
the best ones to reimplement it,
On 1/31/07, John Sonnenschein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31-Jan-07, at 11:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is super easy (IMO) for people to get Solaris, and the
OpenSolaris code. The hack on it and c
ontribute part is hard because of closed_bins and the integration
process
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care
about our company!
It is
GPL, on the other hand, is aimed at forcing the
world to adopt the
FSF's Free philosophy, and to discourage
non-free software in
all forms.
This raises an other point I'd like to make, suppose
you have
a choice of different licenses and they are named:
Fascist Source
- If the main GPL project in the OpenSolaris
space is not
even considering GPLv3, what advantage does
this have?
- What can be done against a tear-off CDDL
community split?
For me the big difference is the fact that GPLv3
will remove the grey area of
device drivers and
Shawn Walker wrote:
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care
about our
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
the problem that
dual licensing is trying to solve?
one little problem... to become a major
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would
like to increase outside
contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just
not possible in
foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute
to
I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a bad idea.
I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain popularity. Most
people here(from the responses i've read) seem quite happy with the current
license. I'm quite suprised that some think the community isn't
Shawn Walker wrote:
Alan said he *only* cared about acceptance, not the license. Whether
this means not anything else as well is not clear. I'm just saying
that I find that particular terminology in any context unsettling.
Acceptance should almost never be more important to me personally.
If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems
that nobody on
either side of this debate (I see at least a
triangle: CDDL only / dual
CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ]
actually has any evidence
only opinions about what might happen.
--
Darren J Moffat
On 1/31/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
wrote:
As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
the problem that
dual licensing is
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Brian McCafferty wrote:
I think if your adopting GPLv3 just to increase participation its a
bad idea. I don't think you need to pander to some group to gain
popularity. Most people here(from the responses i've read) seem
quite happy with the current license.
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:02 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
I don't care what license is used, I care only about
acceptance, and that
means for the most amount of open source software
that we can be accepted by.
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:14 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides
benefits. We do not have just opinions, emotions and fear. I mean really,
that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.
It is? When I see changes from
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good
sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.
IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't
need to have a
Alan DuBoff wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good
sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.
IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't
Alan DuBoff wrote:
This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement
does that make about the code?
It says that the BSD
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The only statement that makes is that you misunderstand the licenses.
A BSD-licensed project could require contributor agreements to avoid the
sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the BSD license to drop the
hated
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:25 pm, John Plocher wrote:
Alan DuBoff wrote:
This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of
On Jan 31, 2007, at 10:01 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
I don't think anyone is pinning participation exclusively on any
license choice, per say. It's just one factor among many. People
are already contributing to the project in many ways, and in fact,
the community is starting to grow in ways
Hey,
Stephen Harpster wrote:
I'm also not asking to replace CDDL. I'm asking if
people think it
would be a good idea to dual-license OpenSolaris
CDDL code with GPLv3.
Of course that depends on what the final outcome of
GPLv3 is, but
assuming it looks close to what it is today,
Agreed. I think a smoother streamlined integration process would be
far more beneficial than any l icense changes or additions at this
point. There aren't enough resources available to do this, and it's
unfair to expect SUN employees to do this in their spare time. The
engineers have enough to
61 matches
Mail list logo
