The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful.
Central to that discussion were three principles:
1) everyone needs to work on a common version control system
2) everyone needs to use a common issue re
> Otherwise, stick with the CDDL. GPLv3 cannot be
> evaluated seriously
> until it is actually approved by the FSF and
> published in final form.
> Even then, dual-licensing wouldn't make any sense,
> but at least we'd
> have an idea of the actual impact of a switch from
> CDDL to GPLv3.
>
>
There seems to be a lot of talk regarding CDDL, GPLv3,... but no one
(especially Sun, ...) mentions a BSD-like license. It seems, imho, BSD-like
license is the eventual way to go for all concerns - User-end wise undoubtedly.
This is OpenSolaris afterall.
as Roy mentions below:
"...If Java had
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 fo
> 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 w
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 sk
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. An
> 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 .
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, makin
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, OpenSo
> >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 pro
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
"Ignacio Marambio Catán" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
"Stefan Teleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 exp
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
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
>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
John Plocher wrote:
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.
>> 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, s
> The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
> all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful.
> Central to that discussion were three principles:
>
>1) everyone needs to work on a common version control system
>2) everyone needs to use a co
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roy, I would like to meet you in Berlin at OSDEVCON for a more
in depth talk on the CAB and license stuff...
> The first day that the CAB met, almost two years ago, we talked about
> all of the things that OpenSolaris needed to do to become successful
>I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>possible solutions.
"Sun" did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
> >possible solutions.
>
> "Sun" did not decide to move to H
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
possible solutions.
"Sun" did not d
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
lots of wise words elided .
>
> Otherwise, stick with the CDDL. GPLv3 cannot be evaluated seriously
> until it is actually approved by the FSF and published in final form.
> Even then, dual-licensing wouldn't make any sense, but at least we'd
>
>I believe that there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing
>OpenSolaris with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license -
>aside from possible good press for the project. In addition, I believe
>that there are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but not
>limite
Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "Sun" did not decide to move to Hg; it was pretty much an open process
> >> which led to the selection of Hg.
> >>
> >
> > I am not aware of a real discussion on that.
> >
> Read the tools-discuss archives. The whole selection process wa
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
I can assure you it wasn't fixed
Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
> > to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
> > before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this
> > discussion.
>
> On
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
I can assure you that everyone approached it with an open mind.
Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
Based on my impression.
That's
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>> >possible solutions.
>>
>> "Sun" did not decide to
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
>>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
>>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow people to point to
>>> >possible solutions.
>>>
>>> "Sun" did not
>The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
>started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
>"Removal of Features", and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
>community that we needed to move to something else, and OpenSolaris
>moved the switc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
> >started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
> >"Removal of Features", and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
> >community that we needed to move to something else
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The tools-discuss group discussed this issue at length, including
> the criteria for selection and how the other candidates fell by the
> way side.
>
> Was it really necessary to wait until SCCS or teamware were opensourced?
Of course it was.
> Teamware was pretty much
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >I still don't understand why Sun did device to move to Hg while
> >>> >it looks simple to ehance sccs. The problem is that the SCCS source
> >>> >has not been made available fast enough to allow peopl
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Well, there was a statement (from I believe it was Keith) that Sun was
going to work OSSing Teamware in 2005. I was waiting for the results on this.
If you read the links I posted, you'll see that this was in fact the
case, but that it never came to fruition.
From my
This is not much work but it does not make sense to discuss _before_
SCCS is opensourced. The fact that the SCM discussion started before
OSSing SCCS makes it obvious to me that there was a Sun internal vote
against SCCS before the "discussion" went public.
It saddened me to see a dedicate
Ghee Teo wrote:
It saddened me to see a dedicated honorable OpenSolaris community
member such as
yourself drew such conclusion (or having such perception) about Sun,
I feel like I
am wasting all my time reading all the discussion here :-(
If we can build up trust among us day in da
Oh boy. Now you've done it!
Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Jo
Stephen Harpster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh boy. Now you've done it!
>
> Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
> Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
> other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
> list, yo
>Oh boy. Now you've done it!
>
>Larry was /one/ member of a team that designed and implemented
>Teamware. I'm sure Larry likes to think it's all about him, but the
>other members of the Teamware team don't and if any of them read this
>list, you've pretty much just started another flamefest!
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Frank Van Der Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It was an open process.
>
> I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
> to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
> before the discussion started and this is why I did not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In earnest, I think that flamefest is really overstating what is
happening here.
If this is a flamefest, I can show the people who call it that *real*
flamefests and then some :-) Seriously, this isn't bad at all for a
community of opinionated geeks.. Maybe I'm jaded
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 09:04]:
> When the community controls this, it will be the community volunteers
> who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is quite unique:
> continue to develop an OS while opening up the development process
> and the source code manag
When the community controls this, it will be the
community volunteers
who will carry more of the burden; what we're doing is
quite unique:
continue to develop an OS while opening up the
development process
and the source code management system. I'm not sure
how we could
approach this much differe
Al Hopper wrote:
Agreed. I followed that discussion, downloaded the SCMs and was a
proponent of git to begin with. But git failed miserably in testing.
Personally I had hoped for git to succeed - but it failed on its own
demerits in fair and open testing against the competition.
git certainly
> project. This assumes, of course, that
> Sun/OpenSolaris.org/et al are
> contributing in good faith and adding real value to
> the project.
So far, everything has indicated that they are. SUN did not have to do what
they did, and it has a very costly and time-conuming process.
> When people
> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a
> license. Suppose I
> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual
> licensed under CDDL
> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster
> license, a
> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
> Now normally, lin
> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure
> if we dual license
> - the potential for one license to be ripped off and
> the source forked
> *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
> bit), the inability
> to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
> that dual-lice
> And, perhaps, can we in fairness in this discussion
> say that we're
> using "GPLv3 with the assembly exception"; that makes
> GPLv3 much
> more like the CDDL; and I'm sure that the community
> isn't stupid.
> If they like that property of the GPL, then they
> won't stand for
> the exception.
Co
> Unless GPLv3 is phrased such that the assembly
> "exception" is the norm,
> this won't buy is anything, PR wise.
>
> To claim that the GPL was instrumental in "Sun
> getting it" for Java is
> a fallacious argument; Java's previous license was
> not conductive to
> Open development
>
> Casper
+
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> > OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a
> community 10x or 100x as
> > large as the one we have today. I really *don't*
> think the license is
> > the main impediment we face, I think all the other
> issues that have been
> > raised around ease of participatio
Q. OpenSolaris success?
A. (my version)
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
__
Q. OpenSolaris success?
- Success is when open source developers see
OpenSolaris as the #1 or #2 choice for any UNIX
development or most embeddable projects involving a
UNIX-based OS.
- When people start wearing OpenSolaris T-shirts
during halftime at the Super Bowl. Need a cool
OpenSolaris comme
> Embracing more
> people, making more friends, gets more people
> talking about you,
> participating, and developing with you. Growing the
> population.
> There's other ways to achieve this though - a simple
> license change may not
> necessarily be the best approach [1]. A very obvious
> exam
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[snip]
+lots ;-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> They speak of
> the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
> by many, many
> FSF members and supporters around the world who would
> welcome the
> chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
> licensed in a way
> they felt ethically able to use, so that they could
> cut t
> Apple's XCode
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a
> kick-ass front-end
> for their version of DTrace. I don't see them
> contributing that back to
> OpenSolaris.
That's not shipping yet, so let's be fair and wait first before saying that
please.
> Stephen Harpster
>
Yes,yes.A Community Free,Open and Independent,this could be the correct way to
follow.Great Post Alan,Thank you!
+1
Giacomo
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting
> this
> morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich
> Green
> (Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in
> the
> last few years about licenses and open source,
> especially
> with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris
>
On Feb 4, 2007, at 05:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
They speak of the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
by many, many FSF members and supporters around the world who would
welcome the chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
licensed in a way they felt ethically able to use,
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
[...]
> 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.
64 matches
Mail list logo
