On 03/24/10 08:57 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore"<gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't mean for that at all. But the change of the default path is
>> being handled as part of PSARC 2010/067 -- i.e. that is the case (and
>> its still open) that started this whole mess. I'm not a fan of the fact
>> that the case is closed, but I cannot discuss rationale for it being
>> closed in public, which I'm sure you understand.
>>
> My understanding of "OpenSolaris" is that uses a liberal license that
> allows distributors to add closed parts. Internal decisions that affect
> the closed parts only may of course be handled in a closed case.
>
> My impression is however that a discussion about changing the default PATH
> is a discussion that affects all parts of Opensolaris and thus of course
> affects "OpenSolaris" as a community platform (not a distro). For this reason,
> related discussions should be made in the open.
>
That doesn't sound like an unreasonable position to take, but the
reality is that at the moment the various gates that together make up
the Open Solaris code base are held in control by Oracle. Oracle has
the ultimate right to allow whatever modifications it wants to that code
base.
The community has the ability to take those modifications, apply further
modifications, or create a new "head of tree" (essentially a code
fork). For example, Nexenta ships with a totally different userland.
Ultimately, you won't be able to dictate terms to Oracle about how it
should manage its code or its IP, or even its trademarks. At present
the ON "upstream" is Oracle's code; the gatekeepers serve as Oracle
employees acting in Oracle's interests.
What you can count on is Oracle will do what Oracle's management
believes is in Oracle's best interest. This is true of any commercial
enterprise. At least any successful one.
I don't think anyone (at least in management) at Oracle believes that it
is in Oracle's best interest that one of its flagship products should be
held completely hostage to the demands of a community who may or may not
have Oracle's best interests at heart.
-- Garrett
