|
Replies:
141
-
Last Post:
Feb 27, 2007 7:05 PM
by: aland
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 4:56 PM
|
|
Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one.... Sorry.....
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process.
As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news,
but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself.
I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities.
But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge
everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Adelaide, South Australia
Registered:
9/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:14 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen.
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
> we think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that
> we could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
> up a world of possibilities.
Are you REALLY asking:
1) Is the community willing to consider dual licensing the OpenSolaris
code with another EXISTING license; or
2) If not, what license features does the community want included in
said license; or
3) Is the community willing to NOT license future code under the CDDL
and replace it with an existing license; or
4) Is the community dissatisfied for some reason with the CDDL and
willing to replace it with a new, yet to be determined license AND
what features should the new license have
Of course, it might be easier to interpret the community's silence about
the matter as:
1) The community doesn't care about the matter
2) The community is satisfied with the current licensing situation
3) The community thinks the GPLv3 is fairly much a "sideshow" to what
this community is really about
I suspect the most credible combination is (2) and a bit of (3). To be
perfectly honest, I thought -- in this compartment of my online life --
that I was part of the OpenSolaris community and not the Free Software
Foundation community [where a huge discussion about the upcoming GPLv3
would strike me as being more on topic].
DSL
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:30 PM
in response to: lloy0076
|
|
Yeah, it's confusing because v3 isn't final and decided yet. We kinda
know where it's going though. We were expecting a final version by now,
but one hasn't popped out yet. I think it's worth having this
discussion now though rather than waiting some indeterminate time.
I'm not asking how you would change v3. I'll let the FSF continue to
work the way it's working. If you want to get involved with that, fine,
but that's not what I'm asking here.
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, would you like that, not
like that, or not care?
David Lloyd wrote:
>
> Stephen.
>
>
>> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves
>> what we think about GPLv3. What would it
>> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility
>> that we could attach an "assembly exception"
>> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could
>> open up a world of possibilities.
>
> Are you REALLY asking:
>
> 1) Is the community willing to consider dual licensing the OpenSolaris
> code with another EXISTING license; or
>
> 2) If not, what license features does the community want included in
> said license; or
>
> 3) Is the community willing to NOT license future code under the CDDL
> and replace it with an existing license; or
>
> 4) Is the community dissatisfied for some reason with the CDDL and
> willing to replace it with a new, yet to be determined license AND
> what features should the new license have
>
> Of course, it might be easier to interpret the community's silence
> about the matter as:
>
> 1) The community doesn't care about the matter
>
> 2) The community is satisfied with the current licensing situation
>
> 3) The community thinks the GPLv3 is fairly much a "sideshow" to what
> this community is really about
>
> I suspect the most credible combination is (2) and a bit of (3). To be
> perfectly honest, I thought -- in this compartment of my online life
> -- that I was part of the OpenSolaris community and not the Free
> Software Foundation community [where a huge discussion about the
> upcoming GPLv3 would strike me as being more on topic].
>
>
> DSL
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:47 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
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, would you like that, not
> like that, or not care?
I don't really believe I'm enough of a stakeholder in OpenSolaris (ON) to feel
like I have a say in the matter, but what I'd really like to see is a set of
scenarios of how this would work - in terms of committing code back,
distributing code, and linking to the current closed sources.
As a random aside, I'd be worried that dual licensing would attract more people
to the code base that we still haven't been able to get to an operational level
for non-Sun contributions - perhaps that's a good worry to have, but I'd really
like to see serious progress being made before such a move is possible.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:00 PM
in response to: gman
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> 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, would
> you like that, not
> > like that, or not care?
>
> I don't really believe I'm enough of a stakeholder in
> OpenSolaris (ON) to feel
> like I have a say in the matter, but what I'd really
> like to see is a set of
> scenarios of how this would work - in terms of
> committing code back,
> distributing code, and linking to the current closed
> sources.
>
> As a random aside, I'd be worried that dual licensing
> would attract more people
> to the code base that we still haven't been able to
> get to an operational level
> for non-Sun contributions - perhaps that's a good
> worry to have, but I'd really
> like to see serious progress being made before such a
> move is possible.
>
>
> Glynn
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
Agreed. I think a smoother streamlined integration process would be far more beneficial than any license 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 do :)
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:49 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
>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 do.
Clearly, that would be a much more important step toward making
OpenSolaris go forward then repainting it.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:17 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster wrote:
> 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, would you like that, not
>> like that, or not care?
>
> I don't really believe I'm enough of a stakeholder in OpenSolaris (ON) to feel
> like I have a say in the matter, but what I'd really like to see is a set of
> scenarios of how this would work - in terms of committing code back,
> distributing code, and linking to the current closed sources.
>
> As a random aside, I'd be worried that dual licensing would attract more people
> to the code base that we still haven't been able to get to an operational level
> for non-Sun contributions - perhaps that's a good worry to have, but I'd really
> like to see serious progress being made before such a move is possible.
This is an interesting concern. I'm not sure about getting too many
people directly involved with the code (but I tend to agree with you and
Shawn on this point generally) but we have a similar challenge just
growing and bringing new people into the community in rapidly growing
areas -- such as China, India, and Brazil. From what I've seen, I think
we can actually handle very large numbers of people since most of them
have to be educated about the basics since OpenSolaris is still very
much an American project and what they do will many times be distributed
and not centered around this specific website. I'm very interested in
this issue. It will be fascinating to experience as we grow.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:02 AM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster wrote:
> 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, would you like that, not
>> like that, or not care?
>>
>
> I don't really believe I'm enough of a stakeholder in OpenSolaris (ON) to feel
> like I have a say in the matter, but what I'd really like to see is a set of
> scenarios of how this would work - in terms of committing code back,
> distributing code, and linking to the current closed sources.
>
If incoming code is licensed as CDDL or GPLv3, then we would ask that
you dual-license it CDDL/GPLv3. If incoming code is another license,
then that license needs to be able to work with both CDDL and GPLv3.
You don't want to disadvantage one over the other. If someone wants to
take OpenSolaris under the CDDL license, then they need access to all
the pieces. Likewise with taking OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 license.
In terms of the current closed sources, if we, Sun, wrote it (install,
storage, clustering), then eventually it will be opened under CDDL. And
if we, the entire community, decide that dual-licensing is a good thing,
we would also dual-license that.
For closed 3rd party code (mainly device drivers), we provide an
assembly exception to our GPLv3 code that allows it to be mixed.
Essentially, we're saying that for code Sun wrote, we'll allow our GPLv3
code to combine with these proprietary drivers without a viral effect.
Because we own the code we wrote, we can grant such exceptions.
Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are licensed
under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or you're
stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other pieces of
OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the kernel. You
can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.)
> As a random aside, I'd be worried that dual licensing would attract more people
> to the code base that we still haven't been able to get to an operational level
> for non-Sun contributions - perhaps that's a good worry to have, but I'd really
> like to see serious progress being made before such a move is possible.
>
I imagine there will still be quality gates to get code in. The
constitution outlines that --- your average hacker just can't check code
in willy nilly. Communities will dictate some criteria for checking
code back and limiting check ins to qualified contributers.
Dual-licensing would not change what the constitution says.
>
> Glynn
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:13 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are licensed
> under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or you're
> stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other pieces of
> OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the kernel. You
> can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.)
and this is really really bad for OpenSolaris. Note that my
understanding is that this does NOT only apply to the kernel. If
someone contributes some very cool code for a file in libc but only
makes it available under GPLv3 and not CDDL can we integrate that into
the OpenSolaris dual-licensed code base ?
The very fact that we need to have discussions like this about how daul
licensing could work and grant explicit exceptions means it is too
complex.
Keep the licensing simple and fair (in both directions!) and the
developers will come. Dual licensing for me fails the simple and fails
the fair in both directions. Maybe it is because I don't understand it
but that probably shows it isn't simple enough.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:08 PM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
OK. libc is a funky example. I was trying to say that we can take back
other licenses exactly as we do today. (There are all kinds of GPLv2
apps in OpenSolaris today.) Dual-licensing will not change that.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> Of course, this also means that incoming contributions that are
>> licensed under GPLv3 will also have to grant an assembly exception or
>> you're stuck with contributed code that doesn't work with other
>> pieces of OpenSolaris. (Note that this really only applies to the
>> kernel. You can still have userland GPL code just like we do today.)
>
> and this is really really bad for OpenSolaris. Note that my
> understanding is that this does NOT only apply to the kernel. If
> someone contributes some very cool code for a file in libc but only
> makes it available under GPLv3 and not CDDL can we integrate that into
> the OpenSolaris dual-licensed code base ?
>
> The very fact that we need to have discussions like this about how
> daul licensing could work and grant explicit exceptions means it is
> too complex.
>
> Keep the licensing simple and fair (in both directions!) and the
> developers will come. Dual licensing for me fails the simple and
> fails the fair in both directions. Maybe it is because I don't
> understand it but that probably shows it isn't simple enough.
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:35 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, 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, would you like that, not like that, or not care?
I've skimmed most of this (huge!) thread with interest. Here, for the record,
are my thoughts so far on this subject, with the proviso that any final debate
should wait until GPLv3 is finished.
However, let me be clear: I am against the idea of dual-licensing OpenSolaris
with GPLv3.
The CDDL is not an impediment to others using the code as intended (Mac OSX's
use of DTrace and ZFS is evidense of this), so that's not a reason. If GPLv3
fixes GPLv2's viral problem (i.e., if part of a project is GPLed, then the whole
project must be GPLed)--that is, allows GPLv3'ed code to be combined on a file
by file basis with non GPLv3'ed code--then I still don't see the need to adopt
it. The CDDL already allows such combining, so what would be gained?
As others have pointed out, if this is some misguided attempt to appease the
GPL worshippers, I think it is doomed to failure. Most of the GPLists I've
seen are staunch supporters of v2, and are unlikely to embrace v3. Given that,
their attitudes towards OpenSolaris are unlikely to change.
Further, what about people who have already contributed code to OpenSolaris? Yes,
they signed a Contributor Agreement, but presumably they did so in good faith,
and assumed that their code would not be retroactively dual-licensed. The CA
does not state in as many words that that is a possibility. Does the assignment
of dual-copyright entitle the assignee to change the licensing terms, especially
if it goes against the wishes of the code's originator? IANAL but I doubt it.
And even if does allow it legally, is it morally right?
How many people have contributed code BECAUSE OpenSolaris was licensed under
the CDDL and not GPL?
We (rightfully) made a big hoo-haw about CDDL when Solaris was first opened.
In some circles, dual licensing could be seen as an admission of CDDL's
failure. Frankly, who cares what prominant pro-GPL advocates think? I think
most of them don't even get the intracies of the license anyway; they equate
open source with the GPL, and that is clearly wrong.
The CDDL is OSI-approved, encourages code sharing, mandates that changes to
CDDLed code are made available to the community, yet protects entities' IP
rights by allowing closed (proprietory) code to be mixed with open code
(at a file granularity). Dual licensing OpenSolaris with GPLv3 is neither
necessary, nor IMHO, desirable, and it would take a LOT of persuasion to
convince me otherwise.
Respectfully,
--
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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:45 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> I'm not asking how you would change v3. I'll let the FSF continue to
> work the way it's working. If you want to get involved with that, fine,
> but that's not what I'm asking here.
As long as the GPLv3 still contains something like GPLv2 § 8, I would not call
the GPLv3 a really free license.
A big problem with GPLv2 is it's ambiguity. From an up-to-day OSS license, I
expect an explicit permission to combine the so licensed code with any other
code that is under any OSI approved license. Such an explicit permission (in fact
more) is present in the CDDL but it is still missing in the GPLv3 (this was
true the last time I did read a GPLv3 draft).
If Sun is sure that OpenSolaris is a 100% Sun dominated project, this may not
be a problem but if OpenSolaris is a true OSS project, then the license scheme
should not prevent forking the code. While Sun may enforce dual licensing
for code that is delivered to Sun, Sun cannot enforce this for code that
has been contributed to a forked piece of code. Other people may wish to
benefit from such a contribution to a fork. If such a contribution is GPL only,
other entities (e.g. *BSD) are prevented from being able to use it.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
372
From:
AR
Registered:
2/2/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:17 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at sun dot com> wrote:
> Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one.... Sorry.....
>
> In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
> Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process.
> As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news,
> but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself.
>
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities.
>
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge
> everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
if this actually happens we might end up doing things like this:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html
yes, to get code integrated into mozilla, you have to release it using
3 different licenses!
to me, that is an ugly hack
nacho
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,119
From:
Registered:
7/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:18 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen:
In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the
FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various
FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about
whether they will want to move to GPLv3 or not. GPLv3 will only be a
good move, in my opinion, if it is accepted by the FreeSoftware
community. I think it is a bit early to tell, since GPLv3 isn't
done yet.
Brian
> Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one.... Sorry.....
>
> In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
> prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
> Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and
> everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich
> has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made.
> We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news, but I haven't seen much
> in the OpenSolaris community itself.
>
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
> we think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that
> we could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
> up a world of possibilities.
>
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the
> way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge
> everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:12 PM
in response to: yippi
|
|
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:18 +0800, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the
> FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various
> FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about
> whether they will want to move to GPLv3 or not. GPLv3 will only be a
> good move, in my opinion, if it is accepted by the FreeSoftware
> community. I think it is a bit early to tell, since GPLv3 isn't
> done yet.
oh, there are high hopes it will be accepted. FSF betting on "GPLv2 or
later" clause in source file headers. This blog entry is particularly
useful:
http://hritcu.wordpress.com/2007/01/06/gplv2-or-later/
> Brian
>
>
> > Ugh. Here's the de-HTML'ed one.... Sorry.....
> >
> > In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
> > prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under GPLv3. In November
> > Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and
> > everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich
> > has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made.
> > We've seen discussions in blogs and in the news, but I haven't seen much
> > in the OpenSolaris community itself.
> >
> > I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
> > we think about GPLv3. What would it
> > mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that
> > we could attach an "assembly exception"
> > to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
> > up a world of possibilities.
> >
> > But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the
> > way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge
> > everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,253
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:07 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
say, positive or negative?
I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of
"why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused discussion,
which is what I think we're seeing so far.
Danek
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:16 PM
in response to: dduvall
|
|
> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
> just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
> say, positive or negative?
>
> I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of
> "why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused discussion,
> which is what I think we're seeing so far.
>
> Danek
Thank you for asking this _upwards_ .
However I am fairly convinced that Mr. Schwartz reads these mail lists.
So a direct response would be nice.
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:28 PM
in response to: dduvall
|
|
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> trying to solve with such a licensing change?
its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping
factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed their stuff, isn't it?
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
581
From:
CZ
Registered:
3/21/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:03 PM
in response to: erast
|
|
Hi Erast,
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> > Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> > trying to solve with such a licensing change?
>
> its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping
> factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed their stuff, isn't it?
>
Not sure (consider Netscape section in AOL), but if it is truth - the
results? I'm not sure that it was successful, really.
Anyway this thread wasn't started in good direction, I think. Why should
we consider negatives? At first this should be about positives. GPLv3
(and why only GPLv3?) advocates should come with arguments, why GPLv3 is
so good for OpenSolaris project. But I saw only "yes, yes, yes, yes,
yes" from them...
But:
How can you argue? Do you know final GPLv3 already?
Do you already know the impact on Open Source world?
Please, stop and come with real arguments. When FSF will publish their
license and it will be accepted by "GPL community"... Then we can think
about dual-license.
And that proposal from Stephen Harpster about GPLv3 with "assembly
exception" (I don't know what it means...) - in the case that FSF will
accept this, are you sure that "GPL community" will accept it?
Best regards,
--
Milan Jurik
Revenue Product Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. - Prague Czech Republic
JKJ: "I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for
hours."
P.S.: I'm sorry that I'm sending it from sun.com, but I would like to be
member of the OSOL community...
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:53 AM
in response to: dduvall
|
|
Danek Duvall wrote:
> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
> just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
> say, positive or negative?
>
> I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of
> "why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused discussion,
> which is what I think we're seeing so far.
I also think it would be helpful if there was an explanation of the
legal consequences of such a dual-licensing approach, for example is the
concern (expressed by several people) that one of the licenses could be
"ripped out" well-founded or not?
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:43 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
It's a really good question. I don't know. I'm waiting to hear from
legal.......
(And this is why we're having this conversation in the open!)
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Danek Duvall wrote:
>
>> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
>> trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
>> just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what
>> people
>> say, positive or negative?
>>
>> I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the
>> context of
>> "why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused
>> discussion,
>> which is what I think we're seeing so far.
>
> I also think it would be helpful if there was an explanation of the
> legal consequences of such a dual-licensing approach, for example is
> the concern (expressed by several people) that one of the licenses
> could be "ripped out" well-founded or not?
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:47 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
wouldn't be able to take back.
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> It's a really good question. I don't know. I'm waiting to hear from
> legal.......
>
> (And this is why we're having this conversation in the open!)
>
>
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>> Danek Duvall wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems
>>> you're
>>> trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are
>>> you
>>> just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what
>>> people
>>> say, positive or negative?
>>>
>>> I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the
>>> context of
>>> "why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused
>>> discussion,
>>> which is what I think we're seeing so far.
>>
>> I also think it would be helpful if there was an explanation of the
>> legal consequences of such a dual-licensing approach, for example is
>> the concern (expressed by several people) that one of the licenses
>> could be "ripped out" well-founded or not?
>>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:50 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
> fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
> we wouldn't be able to take back.
>
>
Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
no one here wants to happen.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Phillip (Flip) ...
flip-opensource@pobo...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:34 PM
in response to: ian
|
|
Ian Collins wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
>> fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
>> we wouldn't be able to take back.
>>
>>
> Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
> no one here wants to happen.
>
> Ian
What is wrong about the open source freedom to fork?
Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
Flip
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:40 PM
in response to: Phillip (Flip) ...
|
|
Phillip (Flip) Russell wrote:
>
>
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>>
>>> Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
>>> fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which
>>> we wouldn't be able to take back.
>>>
>>>
>> Well that puts an end to this little debate! I'm sure that's something
>> no one here wants to happen.
>>
>> Ian
>
>
> What is wrong about the open source freedom to fork?
>
> Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
It's not the freedom to fork, its the not being able to take the changes
back which goes against the spirit of open source.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:51 PM
in response to: Phillip (Flip) ...
|
|
Phillip (Flip) Russell wrote:
>
> What is wrong about the open source freedom to fork?
>
> Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
I think it's the "Can't take back changes" bit that is problematic, not
the "Fork" bit. If I'm understanding correctly, if a bug was fixed in a
GPLv3-only fork it would appear that fix could *not* be taken back into
the original dual-licensed source tree.
Of course, INAL ;-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 8:17 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Correct.
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Phillip (Flip) Russell wrote:
>>
>> What is wrong about the open source freedom to fork?
>>
>> Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
>
> I think it's the "Can't take back changes" bit that is problematic,
> not the "Fork" bit. If I'm understanding correctly, if a bug was
> fixed in a GPLv3-only fork it would appear that fix could *not* be
> taken back into the original dual-licensed source tree.
>
> Of course, INAL ;-)
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 9:25 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison <Alan dot Burlison at sun dot com> wrote:
> > Can't someone just as easily fork under the CDDL?
>
> I think it's the "Can't take back changes" bit that is problematic, not
> the "Fork" bit. If I'm understanding correctly, if a bug was fixed in a
> GPLv3-only fork it would appear that fix could *not* be taken back into
> the original dual-licensed source tree.
This is the main problem with dual licensing.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:22 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
> fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
> wouldn't be able to take back.
That was quick - I'm mightily impressed by your Sun-Lawyer-Fu ;-)
However, the answer is rather worrying :-(
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:51 PM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
> >Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
> >fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
> >wouldn't be able to take back.
>
> That was quick - I'm mightily impressed by your Sun-Lawyer-Fu ;-)
It was presumably quick because it's the only correct answer. As Casper
and others have pointed out, anything less wouldn't be dual licensing.
> However, the answer is rather worrying :-(
Well, yes and no. It means that we in the OpenSolaris community (in which
I include engineers that are employed by Sun) have the ultimate, final say
in this: if (hypothetically) an autocratic decision were to be made
around dual licensing, the community could take OpenSolaris, rip off
the GPLv3, and redistribute it under the CDDL exclusively. Which is not
to advocate this, but to point out that the mere possibility means that
it is in everyone's interest to have consensus before dual licensing; an
autocratic decision on this is effectively impossible. This can be thought
of as an open source variant of the Cold War's Mutually Assured Destruction
-- a Mutually Assured Forking, if you will.
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 3:48 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Legal says "yes", it's possible for someone to create an OpenSolaris
> fork based solely on GPLv3, then make GPLv3-only changes to it which we
> wouldn't be able to take back.
so do we need to continue this discussion then, that doesn't sounds like
a fair outcome ?
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:34 AM
in response to: dduvall
|
|
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
because we're CDDL only?
Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
not buy us anything.....
Danek Duvall wrote:
> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> trying to solve with such a licensing change? Are there any, or are you
> just tossing it up in the air to see where it comes down, and what people
> say, positive or negative?
>
> I think it's difficult to evaluate such a proposal without the context of
> "why are we doing this?" and will result in a load of unfocused discussion,
> which is what I think we're seeing so far.
>
> Danek
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:42 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> because we're CDDL only?
>
> Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
> GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
> use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
> source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
> not buy us anything.....
I think it also assumes that a substantial portion of this GPL army
will be willing to sign agreements under our terms, placing their code
under both licenses so that it actually benefits the Open Solaris
community.
If that doesn't happen, then the community forks into the GPLv3-haves
and the CDDL-have-nots. That would likely be a bad thing.
Why would a sensible GPL "bigot" want to do this?
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:02 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:42 am, James Carlson wrote:
> Why would a sensible GPL "bigot" want to do this?
I agree, and more so see the GPL bigots licensing their code in any way that
will make it more difficult for OpenSolaris to use it.
I'm not saying aligning with them will help, I don't know if it will, but I
don't see how it would hurt us.
Since nobody knows the final details of GPLv3, it's all just speculation.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:56 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> because we're CDDL only?
Do we really want contributions from "GPL bigots" (your words not mine!)?
I think we need to step back and rehash why the CDDL was created and why
OpenSolaris code that Sun released was put under CDDL in the first place
rather than the GPLv2 or any other existing OSI license.
There were reasons then why GPLv2 wasn't acceptable, exactly what about
the proposed GPLv3 removes those concerns ?
> Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
> GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
> use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
> source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
> not buy us anything.....
Even if "the open source community" (what ever that means, to me it is a
rather meaningless term but lets run with it) accepts GPLv3 they may not
accept a dual licensed GPLv3 / CDDL, part of that might be FUD or not
being able to understand what dual licensing means. The result is still
no gain.
Do we actually have hard evidence that there are contributers or
contributions of code that we are loosing out on because there is code
under CDDL and if that was under some other license we could have them ?
If so give details please. If not this is all speculation and
assumption about the possible behaviour of people outside this community
based on an as yet incomplete license, right ?
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:39 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
>of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
>there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
>because we're CDDL only?
Please remove GPL from the second sentence; then re-read it.
Does it really make sense to attract *any* kind of bigot?
Bigots are irrational; the way they express their irrational
preferences and fears is only an expression of their general
feeling of insecurity and inadequacy. The pick one particular
focus and if you deflect that, they won't suddenly overcome
their feelings; they'll just focus on the next thing.
>Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
>GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
>use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
>source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
>not buy us anything.....
I'm afraid that's an example of group-think. There are many reasons
to believe that this will not happen. The feelings in the Linux camp
seem to run so high that I, for one, would not be surprised of a
GPLv2-only fork of things interesting to Linux.
I'd suggest that we focus on the things at hand; things that are most
important to the community: commit access, more open source.
We can't attract more developers if we don't finish our development
processes first.
The current suggestion is like running a french restaurant and
complaining about the lack of customers; since some prospective
customers have said they really like mexican food, you suggest adding
mexican to the menu. But looking out of the window I see that there's
no road, only a parking lot. Let's focus on fixing the road first.
I see you're also suggesting GPLv3 "with the assembly exception";
this, to me, seems to be enough for a GPL bigot to refocus and say,
yeah, that's just the CDDL under a different name.
We didn't used to be so insecure at Sun; why has this changed?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:59 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL,
> would there be more people willing to participate who have to date
> ignored us because we're CDDL only?
>
Like many others, I've held off replying to this thread, I'm neither a
lawyer nor a speculator. Having said that, reading the above my
reaction is do we realy want contributions from 'GPL bigots'? From my
perspective, the term implies someone who cares more about the licence
than the code.
Huge effort was expended getting the CDDL ratified and the code
released, it's too early to roll over and dual license.
I think way too much time is wasted here in endless, repetitive debates
about licenses and not enough on finding the real barriers to community
contributed code.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
284
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:51 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> because we're CDDL only?
That seems unlikely. At least, we have no indication that anyone in that
camp would be satisfied by GPLv3.
In fact, do we have *any* example of someone who said, "I was all set to
contribute my code to OpenSolaris, but then I saw the CDDL license and
decided against it"?
Scott
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:55 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> because we're CDDL only?
Stephen,
Speculating about participation based on a license is far fetched. There are
many other things that would help assist that more than a license, such as
Source Code Management, Bug Reporting, and full access to all Sun cases (if
that piece is not done already, I think much of ARC is).
> Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
> GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
> use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
> source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
> not buy us anything.....
I don't see why they won't, but we'll have to wait until it is out to see.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
John Mark Walker
johnmark@hyperic.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:06 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> Speculating about participation based on a license is far fetched. There are
> many other things that would help assist that more than a license, such as
> Source Code Management, Bug Reporting, and full access to all Sun cases (if
> that piece is not done already, I think much of ARC is).
>
I completely agree. Based on my experience with hundreds of free
software projects, I've seen a variety of different licenses work out
for communities. The only caveat I would add is that it's very possible
to go to a more liberal license and acquire more community
participation. However, it almost never works going the other way -
going to a more restrictive license almost never works and in fact is a
good way to split a community. For an example of the latter, see the
ill-fated XFree86 licensing change.
In general, the biggest deciding factor in this is whether a project
leader(s) adds real value and interacts with the community in good
faith, not what license is chosen from the outset. If you go with GPLv3,
I'm betting dollars to donuts that whatever compatibility issues pop up
between GPL versions will be rendered null and void for the simple fact
that it's in everyone's interest to make them utterly compatible.
-John Mark Walker
Hyperic Community Outreach
http://www.hyperic.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:14 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
>> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
>> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
>> because we're CDDL only?
>>
>
> Stephen,
>
> Speculating about participation based on a license is far fetched. There are
> many other things that would help assist that more than a license, such as
> Source Code Management, Bug Reporting, and full access to all Sun cases (if
> that piece is not done already, I think much of ARC is).
>
Agreed, but those things are in progress and the team doing the work is
different. That work will get done no matter what gets decided about
dual-licensing. There is no dependency between the two.
>
>> Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
>> GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
>> use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
>> source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
>> not buy us anything.....
>>
>
> I don't see why they won't, but we'll have to wait until it is out to see.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:13 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:14 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> >> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> >> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> >> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> >> because we're CDDL only?
> >
> > Stephen,
> >
> > Speculating about participation based on a license is far fetched. There
> > are many other things that would help assist that more than a license,
> > such as Source Code Management, Bug Reporting, and full access to all Sun
> > cases (if that piece is not done already, I think much of ARC is).
>
> Agreed, but those things are in progress and the team doing the work is
> different. That work will get done no matter what gets decided about
> dual-licensing. There is no dependency between the two.
I guess that if participation is the concern, and the reason you directed your
question as worded above, I think it would be of more value to focus on these
itesm like SCM, bugster, and full process exposure, rather than the license.
Both are important, don't get me wrong, but the license is in no way
"low-hanging-fruit" (not that the other items listed are).
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:54 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
> of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
> there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
> because we're CDDL only?
If they did really join, they would most likely contribute GPLv3 only code.
Is this what we like?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
31
From:
CA
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:22 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
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 growing fast enough. It certainly is active and at least your attracting the right people. Everytime i've read a discussion on the GPL, i'm left wondering whether its a license or a cult. Maybe it just has a LOT of really poor representatives. Of course I might be hanging out in the wrong places. It also appears that to draw those people in, you'd also need to adopt a new name- linux.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
374
From:
US
Registered:
12/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:12 PM
in response to: brian
|
|
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.
I agree, the issue with non-SUNW participation is not the license,
it's the org itself. In fact I'm sad to see that the trend is to pin
the participation issues directly to what the license happens to be,
because the CDDL is really a fine license to work under.
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. Note the capital ORG, by which I mean "The
OpenSolaris Organization."
Now the CA isn't a bad thing and it, like it has been already pointed
out, is valuable to the community in the long view in terms of code
stewardship. The problem is that the CA is not part of the community,
it's with a corporate entity, and raises a situation where a
potential contributor can be put into a sticky situation.
This raises additional concern to someone new because the
relationship between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW seems rather nebulous,
and it's hard to tell what sandbox the ORG's feet are firmly planted
in, or where it's heading. For crying out loud, the photo of the CAB
members has a big honkin' Sun logo in the background.
This is NOT to say that Sun's efforts in both in terms of birthing
OpenSolaris and the manhours spent by its staff contributing to it
are not appreciated... but I think that by the 2 year point, there
needs to be a distinct, tangible separation between the two. The
umbilical cord needs to be cut at some point; and that point, in
terms of peoples' patience, is approaching.
If there's anything that could instigate a fork, it would be the
failure to craft this separation.
So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
/dale
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:21 PM
in response to: daleg
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> From where I see it, the participation issue is due
> to a process
> hat 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. Note the capital ORG, by which I
> mean "The
> OpenSolaris Organization."
> /dale
I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue than any contributor agreement. Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG will somehow magically make the people that have second thoughts about this feel any better. The organization will likely be seen merely as a puppet of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!). Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing with Fedora and they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I know. So I don't see how this matters...
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
374
From:
US
Registered:
12/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:42 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> I can't agree with this. I think the processes are more of an issue
> than any contributor agreement.
The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many that needs to
be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and enumerate every one of
them that came to mind, but the CA was at the top of the list for me.
> Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG will somehow
> magically make the people that have second thoughts about this feel
> any better. The organization will likely be seen merely as a puppet
> of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!).
I'm talking a real org here, such as a 501(3)(c). (Here in the US,
that is the legal definition of a not-for-profit organization). It
would be a legal entity all its own, with its own board, elections
and constitution. Sounds familiar, right? But what it would do is
form a concrete basis for, to use a metaphor, "the separation of
church and state". All legal dealings would be with the ORG, not
SUNW. By extension, that means the community.... which is us.
Being a ORG-proper is a lot more than just registering a .org domain
and operating under it.
> Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing with Fedora and
> they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I know. So I
> don't see how this matters...
But it does, because there is a CA in existence /today/... that /all/
non-SUNW people who want to contribute have to sign. My issue isn't
the CA.. it's a good idea. Accountability is good. My issue is with
who is administering the CA. For someone who gets the OpenSolaris
code, makes a fix, and wants to put it back, they have to make a deal
with Sun Microsystems Inc to do so... not the Community as I believe
that's who it should be with.
/dale
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:50 PM
in response to: daleg
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> > I can't agree with this. I think the processes are
> more of an issue
> > than any contributor agreement.
>
> The CA is a process, and it's one process out of many
> that needs to
> be rectified. I wasn't going to sit there and
> enumerate every one of
> them that came to mind, but the CA was at the top of
> the list for me.
>
> > Not only that, I don't think an OpenSolaris ORG
> will somehow
> > magically make the people that have second thoughts
> about this feel
> > any better. The organization will likely be seen
> merely as a puppet
> > of SUN if it existed (even if it isn't!).
>
> I'm talking a real org here, such as a 501(3)(c).
> (Here in the US,
> that is the legal definition of a not-for-profit
> organization). It
> would be a legal entity all its own, with its own
> board, elections
> and constitution. Sounds familiar, right? But what it
> would do is
> form a concrete basis for, to use a metaphor, "the
> separation of
> church and state". All legal dealings would be with
> the ORG, not
> SUNW. By extension, that means the community....
> which is us.
>
> Being a ORG-proper is a lot more than just
> registering a .org domain
> and operating under it.
I know that, which is why I said ORG and not .org. The point is that anything associated with SUN regardless of legal status or not will likely be construed as a mere puppet organization. As it is right now, some people already falsely accuse the existing governance, CAB, etc. as being nothing more than window dressing.
> > Many people have accused RedHat of the same thing
> with Fedora and
> > they don't have a contributor agreement as far as I
> know. So I
> > don't see how this matters...
>
> But it does, because there is a CA in existence
> /today/... that /all/
> non-SUNW people who want to contribute have to sign.
> My issue isn't
> the CA.. it's a good idea. Accountability is good.
> My issue is with
> who is administering the CA. For someone who gets the
> OpenSolaris
> code, makes a fix, and wants to put it back, they
> have to make a deal
> with Sun Microsystems Inc to do so... not the
> Community as I believe
> that's who it should be with.
>
> /dale
Great in theory, but no proof one way or the other. At least the existing way is safe legally speaking.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 7:01 PM
in response to: daleg
|
|
Dale Ghent wrote On 02/01/07 10:12,:
> 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.
That's because it's a great license. :) Licensing OpenSolaris was
challenging, and the people who crafted the changes to MPL to create
CDDL deserve a lot of credit.
> I agree, the issue with non-SUNW participation is not the license, it's
> the org itself. In fact I'm sad to see that the trend is to pin the
> participation issues directly to what the license happens to be,
> because the CDDL is really a fine license to work under.
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 not directly tied to opensolaris.org. Which is
great. We need that diversity, especially for the non-coding types like
me. The engineering will always be here (on opensolaris.org), but that's
only one layer of the community (albeit a rather important layer :)).
Some want to contribute more, though, and that's great. As we evolve
some of the tools, that will be easier.
> 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. Note the capital ORG, by which I mean "The OpenSolaris
> Organization."
>
> Now the CA isn't a bad thing and it, like it has been already pointed
> out, is valuable to the community in the long view in terms of code
> stewardship. The problem is that the CA is not part of the community,
> it's with a corporate entity, and raises a situation where a potential
> contributor can be put into a sticky situation.
>
> This raises additional concern to someone new because the relationship
> between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW seems rather nebulous, and it's hard
> to tell what sandbox the ORG's feet are firmly planted in, or where
> it's heading. For crying out loud, the photo of the CAB members has a
> big honkin' Sun logo in the background.
I shot that image of the CAB in Sun's San Francisco office and the
choice of background was mine exclusively. I simply liked it, that's
all. Don't read anything into it other than I only had a few moments to
get them all with Schwartz for a quick photo before the day's events
were to unfold. Schwartz was with the CAB for lunch, but other than that
the CAB met alone pretty much all day. Remember, that was the first
public announcement of the 5 members, and we had external communication
need to consider. They did a press conference and then met further with
press/analysts at a dinner with executives *and* engineers. In fact, the
opening press conference for OpenSolaris itself on June 14, 2005 was
with execs *and* engineers. I point this out only to suggest that the
engineers are running the engineering but also have participated in many
of the more traditional marketing and communications efforts around the
project.
Regarding the distinction between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW -- Sun funds
this development project, and opensolaris.org represents the opening of
the Solaris engineering organization (people, code, tools) and the
creation of the OpenSolaris community where now for the first time
non-Sun community members can contribute to development (either to
OpenSolaris development directly or to new projects for future
integration or to a variety of other things not tied directly to this
particular site). I'm not sure why that has to be a concern. It's no
secret. We designed the project from day one this way and nothing has
changed. We are talking about doing open development where non-Sun
contributors can earn their way long just as new Sun engineers would.
The "community" consists of Sun and non-Sun developers, and the tools to
enable that blending and collaboration are under development. Also, the
CAB (and now OGB) has been in place to help the community run itself via
a Charter and Constitution. Seems to me the community is taking shape
quite nicely.
> This is NOT to say that Sun's efforts in both in terms of birthing
> OpenSolaris and the manhours spent by its staff contributing to it are
> not appreciated... but I think that by the 2 year point, there needs to
> be a distinct, tangible separation between the two. The umbilical cord
> needs to be cut at some point; and that point, in terms of peoples'
> patience, is approaching.
I've always disagreed with this analogy (the umbilical cord bit). When
you say "Sun" what do you mean? Who are you interacting with? Execs or
engineers? What about those 1,000 or so Sun Solaris engineers? Where do
they go when thing so-called cord is cut? Since we are opening Solaris
development -- we now call that OpenSolaris -- there can be no cutting
of any cords because there is no cored involved. Improving tools and
processes so more people can contribute in more ways is the goal. That's
what will help the community grow from an engineering perspective, and
that's what we are doing.
Jim
> If there's anything that could instigate a fork, it would be the
> failure to craft this separation.
Do we really want "separation" on the project? I'd much prefer openness.
I get the subtext of your point, though, and I think it's valid. I just
express it with openness, not separation.
Jim
> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
> SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
>
> /dale
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
374
From:
US
Registered:
12/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:17 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
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 not directly tied to
> opensolaris.org. Which is great. We need that diversity, especially
> for the non-coding types like me. The engineering will always be
> here (on opensolaris.org), but that's only one layer of the
> community (albeit a rather important layer :)). Some want to
> contribute more, though, and that's great. As we evolve some of the
> tools, that will be easier.
I nod to pretty much all of what you write there, but the last
sentence is something I want to illuminate. Oh, yes we need tools,
and most certainly things need to be easier and mature... but we're
approaching year #2. I don't want to be cynical just to be cynical,
but much of my bother comes from the thought that if 2 years isn't
enough, then what is enough? Four years? Five? Looking beyond two
months from now, the roadmap is literally blank, and surely that's
not because "everything" is finished. That roadmap is the public's
way to benchmark progress, and it says nothing.
> I shot that image of the CAB in Sun's San Francisco office and the
> choice of background was mine exclusively. I simply liked it,
> that's all.
The logo statement by me was a rhetorical one... put there to
illustrate my point that perhaps, just perhaps, that A reason for so-
so growth and poo-poo'ing by other FOSS crowds is that the /image/ of
OpenSolaris makes it seem like a front for Sun to look good. Now, I'm
not agreeing with that assessment, but if I consider the overall
marketing and psychological impression of how one contributes to
OpenSolaris, I can see how people can feel that way no matter how
untrue to that the real situation may be.
So my position is that OpenSolaris needs to be a free-standing ORG.
Sun can still sponsor it, and most of the day-to-day technical
dissertation and contributions would continue as they do today, but
the ins and outs of evolution and maturity and - most importantly -
process action and development, would happen on a 100% community
basis, not with some parts here and other parts in SUNW. As you say,
the upcoming OGB election is a promising step in this direction, as I
hope it will result in a group that's less top-heavy with SUNW
people... and nothing against SUNW people but such a result would
have very good benefits for how the greater FOSS world perceives
OpenSolaris.
Now, to you License Warz folks, switching to GPLv3 would be just
window dressing. I'm talking about a holistic, ground-up evolution of
OpenSolaris as an organization. Changing licenses to appease the
Linux folks would be, at the least, disingenuous since at the end of
the day, OpenSolaris would still be the same organization underneath.
Bigger and more honest gains can be had by other means:
> I've always disagreed with this analogy (the umbilical cord bit).
> When you say "Sun" what do you mean? Who are you interacting with?
> Execs or engineers? What about those 1,000 or so Sun Solaris
> engineers? Where do they go when thing so-called cord is cut?
I'm referring to SUNW - the corporate entity, not at all the people
we all know and appreciate. The proverbial cord I referred to was the
cord of ownership. As I said before, if I want to contribute, I have
to agree to a contract with SUNW. If I get one of those nice
OpenSolaris badges for my website and alter it (and I have done so),
it'll probably be a lawyer who represents SUNW taking me to task
about it. That, and things in that vein are what I am referring to as
"the cord."
Combined with the above and my statements two to four paragraphs up,
I'll reiterate - OpenSolaris needs to be truly, 100% and absolutely
owned by The Community. This Community is pretty much what we already
have - Sun employees and people like myself and anyone else for that
matter working to suggest, improve, and expand our golden egg. Make
OS.org is own entity, assign the relevant trademarks to it, and send
it off to college. SUNW has been good training wheels, but it's time
to start seriously thinking of taking those off at a prudent point
and let OpenSolaris live on its own. I believe that event and a very
public journey towards realizing it would make a world of difference
in terms of Community expansion into the future.
/dale
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 1:22 AM
in response to: daleg
|
|
Dale Ghent wrote On 02/01/07 13:17,:
> 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 not directly tied to
>> opensolaris.org. Which is great. We need that diversity, especially
>> for the non-coding types like me. The engineering will always be here
>> (on opensolaris.org), but that's only one layer of the community
>> (albeit a rather important layer :)). Some want to contribute more,
>> though, and that's great. As we evolve some of the tools, that will
>> be easier.
>
>
> I nod to pretty much all of what you write there, but the last sentence
> is something I want to illuminate. Oh, yes we need tools, and most
> certainly things need to be easier and mature... but we're approaching
> year #2. I don't want to be cynical just to be cynical, but much of my
> bother comes from the thought that if 2 years isn't enough, then what
> is enough? Four years? Five? Looking beyond two months from now, the
> roadmap is literally blank, and surely that's not because "everything"
> is finished. That roadmap is the public's way to benchmark progress,
> and it says nothing.
You talking about this roadmap?
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/
I think you'll see that filled in a bit more, especially after our
meetings last week. There's a great deal of work to do (obviously).
Thanks for pointing that out. There's also an SCM roadmap here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/
>> I shot that image of the CAB in Sun's San Francisco office and the
>> choice of background was mine exclusively. I simply liked it, that's
>> all.
>
>
> The logo statement by me was a rhetorical one... put there to
> illustrate my point that perhaps, just perhaps, that A reason for so- so
> growth and poo-poo'ing by other FOSS crowds is that the /image/ of
> OpenSolaris makes it seem like a front for Sun to look good. Now, I'm
> not agreeing with that assessment, but if I consider the overall
> marketing and psychological impression of how one contributes to
> OpenSolaris, I can see how people can feel that way no matter how
> untrue to that the real situation may be.
Yah, I can see that. But had I chosen a potted plant for the background,
I doubt much would have changed since Schwartz was in the photo.
However, images are reality, and that certainly says Sun more than the
reality :) Sun (and by "Sun" I mean corporate) had no influence over the
CAB once it was up and running. Someone had to create the board to get
started, that's all.
> So my position is that OpenSolaris needs to be a free-standing ORG. Sun
> can still sponsor it, and most of the day-to-day technical dissertation
> and contributions would continue as they do today, but the ins and outs
> of evolution and maturity and - most importantly - process action and
> development, would happen on a 100% community basis, not with some
> parts here and other parts in SUNW.
Well, I think we'll have that once the gate is external and the
constitution is finalized and all the dev processes are finalized. I
don't think we are too far off understanding each other at this point.
> As you say, the upcoming OGB
> election is a promising step in this direction, as I hope it will
> result in a group that's less top-heavy with SUNW people... and nothing
> against SUNW people but such a result would have very good benefits for
> how the greater FOSS world perceives OpenSolaris.
The board is currently 2 Sun members and 3 non-Sun members. It will be
interesting what the community chooses for the next board. By being too
top heavy with Sun people, I think you mean the community as a whole,
right? If so, again, that's to be expected in these early stages since
we employ most of the engineers who work on this stuff. It will take
time for a true community to form, no question about it, but we are at
least putting the right mechanisms in place (albeit slowly for most of
you guys :)).
> Now, to you License Warz folks, switching to GPLv3 would be just window
> dressing. I'm talking about a holistic, ground-up evolution of
> OpenSolaris as an organization. Changing licenses to appease the Linux
> folks would be, at the least, disingenuous since at the end of the day,
> OpenSolaris would still be the same organization underneath. Bigger and
> more honest gains can be had by other means:
>
>> I've always disagreed with this analogy (the umbilical cord bit).
>> When you say "Sun" what do you mean? Who are you interacting with?
>> Execs or engineers? What about those 1,000 or so Sun Solaris
>> engineers? Where do they go when thing so-called cord is cut?
>
>
> I'm referring to SUNW - the corporate entity, not at all the people we
> all know and appreciate. The proverbial cord I referred to was the cord
> of ownership. As I said before, if I want to contribute, I have to
> agree to a contract with SUNW. If I get one of those nice OpenSolaris
> badges for my website and alter it (and I have done so), it'll probably
> be a lawyer who represents SUNW taking me to task about it. That, and
> things in that vein are what I am referring to as "the cord."
Ah, ok. I get it now. Well, I can't see that happening any time soon
since the resources needed to run an engineering project of this size
are significant.
> Combined with the above and my statements two to four paragraphs up,
> I'll reiterate - OpenSolaris needs to be truly, 100% and absolutely
> owned by The Community. This Community is pretty much what we already
> have - Sun employees and people like myself and anyone else for that
> matter working to suggest, improve, and expand our golden egg. Make
> OS.org is own entity, assign the relevant trademarks to it, and send it
> off to college. SUNW has been good training wheels, but it's time to
> start seriously thinking of taking those off at a prudent point and let
> OpenSolaris live on its own. I believe that event and a very public
> journey towards realizing it would make a world of difference in terms
> of Community expansion into the future.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. However I totally agree
with what I /think/ you are suggesting (true openness); I just think
we'll get there differently. If I've mis-represented your view, I
apologize. But I'm just not willing to use language like "separate" and
"cut" and "training wheels" because what we are fundamentally about here
is open development -- to include non-Sun developers in a new, updated,
open OpenSolaris engineering project. Perhaps we are just expressing the
same thing a bit differently, that's all.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 12:09 AM
in response to: daleg
|
|
> 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. Note the capital ORG, by which I mean "The
>OpenSolaris Organization."
There is no OpenSolaris Foundation or any legal entiry of the sort
you could have a contract with.
We've already explained in detail why the contributor agreement is needed
and why it is bad for Linux that it does not have one (it's too late now
for them to get one).
But the FSF understand legal afairs better than Linux did and it does
require a signed contributor agreement.
>Now the CA isn't a bad thing and it, like it has been already pointed
>out, is valuable to the community in the long view in terms of code
>stewardship. The problem is that the CA is not part of the community,
>it's with a corporate entity, and raises a situation where a
>potential contributor can be put into a sticky situation.
Such as?
>This raises additional concern to someone new because the
>relationship between OpenSolaris.ORG and SUNW seems rather nebulous,
>and it's hard to tell what sandbox the ORG's feet are firmly planted
>in, or where it's heading. For crying out loud, the photo of the CAB
>members has a big honkin' Sun logo in the background.
It's not nebulous at all: there's no OpenSolaris.org legal entity;
it is run by Sun and Sun employees plus a cast of external volunteers.
Sun pays.
>This is NOT to say that Sun's efforts in both in terms of birthing
>OpenSolaris and the manhours spent by its staff contributing to it
>are not appreciated... but I think that by the 2 year point, there
>needs to be a distinct, tangible separation between the two. The
>umbilical cord needs to be cut at some point; and that point, in
>terms of peoples' patience, is approaching.
>So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
>opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
>SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
Many people outside Sun can edit web pages on opensolaris.org.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Website maintenance [was GPLv3]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 12:46 AM
in response to: daleg
|
|
Dale Ghent wrote:
> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not SUNW)
> member and I want to be involved.
Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said in
an earlier post, we (the http://opensolaris.org team) spent last week
drawing up a list of stuff we need to do, and there's plenty to go
around :-). Much of the software used to run the site is written in
Java, so there's a significant amount of Java work to be done.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Website maintenance [was GPLv3]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 1:34 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 17:46,:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
>
>> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
>> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
>> SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
>
>
> Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said in
> an earlier post, we (the http://opensolaris.org team) spent last week
> drawing up a list of stuff we need to do, and there's plenty to go
> around :-). Much of the software used to run the site is written in
> Java, so there's a significant amount of Java work to be done.
Also ... we're going to need a *lot* of help translating content on the
site, too, as we start rolling out country portals. For OpenSolaris to
engage with non-English speaking developers around the world, the entire
site will have to be translated into at least a dozen languages. More
info on this on the i18n list soon, but that would be an utterly
*massive* contribution to the community building effort and it requires
no infrastructure, no SCM, no development process, no governance, no
nothing. Just knowledge of English and whatever other language. Don't
get me wrong, some tools would be nice, but they are not a requirement.
Better website tool will come, but for now content translations are
critical.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Website maintenance [was GPLv3]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 2:12 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Hey,
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
>
>> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
>> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
>> SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
>
> Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said in
> an earlier post, we (the http://opensolaris.org team) spent last week
> drawing up a list of stuff we need to do, and there's plenty to go
> around :-). Much of the software used to run the site is written in
> Java, so there's a significant amount of Java work to be done.
I'd love to see some meeting notes, along with a task list on opensolaris.org -
will that happen soon? It might encourage the people who haven't yet contributed
to get more involved.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Website maintenance [was GPLv3]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 3:49 AM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster wrote:
>>> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
>>> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
>>> SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
>> Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said in
>> an earlier post, we (the http://opensolaris.org team) spent last week
>> drawing up a list of stuff we need to do, and there's plenty to go
>> around :-). Much of the software used to run the site is written in
>> Java, so there's a significant amount of Java work to be done.
>
> I'd love to see some meeting notes, along with a task list on opensolaris.org -
> will that happen soon? It might encourage the people who haven't yet contributed
> to get more involved.
I don't see why not, I'll ask. The other thing we've discussed is
releasing the source of the opensolaris.org website application on
opensolaris.org - it was written for us by an external company so we'd
have to give it a legal once-over before we did, but releasing it is
also one of the things on our list :-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Website maintenance [was GPLv3]
Posted:
Feb 21, 2007 2:20 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
Glynn Foster wrote:
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>> Dale Ghent wrote:
>>
>>> So tell me, where do I sign up to be considered for a job such as
>>> opensolaris.org site maintenance? I'm a OpenSolaris community (not
>>> SUNW) member and I want to be involved.
>> Which bits of the site are you interested in helping with? As I said in
>> an earlier post, we (the http://opensolaris.org team) spent last week
>> drawing up a list of stuff we need to do, and there's plenty to go
>> around :-). Much of the software used to run the site is written in
>> Java, so there's a significant amount of Java work to be done.
>
> I'd love to see some meeting notes, along with a task list on opensolaris.org -
> will that happen soon? It might encourage the people who haven't yet contributed
> to get more involved.
Ping?
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:47 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation.
You mentioned this previously and several folks made comments about the
participation of the community, probably more than we'll need for a long
time....(even mine;-) Unfortunately, most of the comments were in regard to
your "community grenade" which you tossed into our mail clients, in your
mention of the GPLv3 and/or how various issues face the OpenSolaris
community.
However, I wanted to offer a suggestion on how you could help our community so
that we could get more participation from them, and at the same time for Sun
to reach out to them and help them understand all facets of the system.
This year is the 2nd year of OpenSolaris, which I suspect you know as well as
anyone...;-)
We have a lot of user groups spread out over the globe, and there's been a lot
of great speakers. But unfortunately we fail to reach our community as a
whole, as far as collaboration, or ability to share our meetings in real time
over the wire.
We can have call-in, and that is very helpful, I think realtime voice is
mandatory for what I would like to see happen (could be skype, or similar,
but good 'ol POTS works fine for call-in participation). We need video also.
I really think we as a community fail to leverage the very software we fought
so hard to get, RealPlayer10.
I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants might
connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting, which could be
anything from a presentation, to hands on training, technology updates, and
things that user groups do...
If you could help us with some type of multiplex video software (RealServer
possibly) and have some of your folks help us figure out what we need, to
have live broadcast using RealPlayer10 as the client, that would be
excellent.
This would help our community participate more than any license would. We have
the technology available today, but we're not able to leverage it properly.
With some help we can make some huge gains in educating and reaching out.
Honestly, even if we had to pay BTV's outrageous prices, if we could
broadcast 1 meeting a month and get up to XXX number of connections, this
could be money well spent on the community. I think we can figure something
out that doesn't have so much re-occurring cost. This is something you should
consider more than what license we have.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:42 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> We're wondering if this would increase participation.
>
> However, I wanted to offer a suggestion on how you could help
> I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants might
> connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting,
+1
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 27, 2007 6:56 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 10:42 am, John Plocher wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> >> We're wondering if this would increase participation.
> >
> > However, I wanted to offer a suggestion on how you could help
> >
> > I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants
> > might connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting,
>
> +1
John,
Unfortunately Stephen Harpster referred me to the desktop folks, still trying
to follow up on that.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:46 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Ummmm...... we already have that. GNOME Meeting went in build 53, and
the USB webcam support just went in last week -- or the week before.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> We're wondering if this would increase participation.
>>
>
> You mentioned this previously and several folks made comments about the
> participation of the community, probably more than we'll need for a long
> time....(even mine;-) Unfortunately, most of the comments were in regard to
> your "community grenade" which you tossed into our mail clients, in your
> mention of the GPLv3 and/or how various issues face the OpenSolaris
> community.
>
> However, I wanted to offer a suggestion on how you could help our community so
> that we could get more participation from them, and at the same time for Sun
> to reach out to them and help them understand all facets of the system.
>
> This year is the 2nd year of OpenSolaris, which I suspect you know as well as
> anyone...;-)
>
> We have a lot of user groups spread out over the globe, and there's been a lot
> of great speakers. But unfortunately we fail to reach our community as a
> whole, as far as collaboration, or ability to share our meetings in real time
> over the wire.
>
> We can have call-in, and that is very helpful, I think realtime voice is
> mandatory for what I would like to see happen (could be skype, or similar,
> but good 'ol POTS works fine for call-in participation). We need video also.
> I really think we as a community fail to leverage the very software we fought
> so hard to get, RealPlayer10.
>
> I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants might
> connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting, which could be
> anything from a presentation, to hands on training, technology updates, and
> things that user groups do...
>
> If you could help us with some type of multiplex video software (RealServer
> possibly) and have some of your folks help us figure out what we need, to
> have live broadcast using RealPlayer10 as the client, that would be
> excellent.
>
> This would help our community participate more than any license would. We have
> the technology available today, but we're not able to leverage it properly.
> With some help we can make some huge gains in educating and reaching out.
> Honestly, even if we had to pay BTV's outrageous prices, if we could
> broadcast 1 meeting a month and get up to XXX number of connections, this
> could be money well spent on the community. I think we can figure something
> out that doesn't have so much re-occurring cost. This is something you should
> consider more than what license we have.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:19 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 10:46 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Ummmm...... we already have that. GNOME Meeting went in build 53, and
> the USB webcam support just went in last week -- or the week before.
I'm fine with using any software that will allow us to collaborate, but
RealPlayer works well and has been sitting dormant on our systems since it
ended up in SX.
If GNOME Meeting makes us jump through some hoops and only works half the
time, it's probably not the best choice. Again, I don't know enough about it.
Any help your folks can provide to make this happen would be appreciated. It
would help us scale properly in today's climate, over the wire.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:34 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
What help do you need? Just ask on the desktop community.....
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Friday 02 February 2007 10:46 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> Ummmm...... we already have that. GNOME Meeting went in build 53, and
>> the USB webcam support just went in last week -- or the week before.
>>
>
> I'm fine with using any software that will allow us to collaborate, but
> RealPlayer works well and has been sitting dormant on our systems since it
> ended up in SX.
>
> If GNOME Meeting makes us jump through some hoops and only works half the
> time, it's probably not the best choice. Again, I don't know enough about it.
>
> Any help your folks can provide to make this happen would be appreciated. It
> would help us scale properly in today's climate, over the wire.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:16 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 11:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> What help do you need? Just ask on the desktop community.....
I'm not exactly sure, but we need some type of software to multiplex the
clients so we can have xxx number, for one thing. Some software might handle
that by default, and GNOME meeting probably does, I don't know.
Ideally, we need software that can allow 50-100 clients to connect at any
given time, and to be able to have audio (call-in or other) so that
questions/interaction can be enabled.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
316
From:
Milwaukee WI
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:27 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
On 2/2/07, Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at sun dot com> wrote:
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:34 am, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We're wondering if this would increase participation.
You mentioned this previously and several folks made comments about the
participation of the community, probably more than we'll need for a long
time....(even mine;-) Unfortunately, most of the comments were in regard to
your "community grenade" which you tossed into our mail clients, in your
mention of the GPLv3 and/or how various issues face the OpenSolaris
community.
However, I wanted to offer a suggestion on how you could help our community so
that we could get more participation from them, and at the same time for Sun
to reach out to them and help them understand all facets of the system.
This year is the 2nd year of OpenSolaris, which I suspect you know as well as
anyone...;-)
We have a lot of user groups spread out over the globe, and there's been a lot
of great speakers. But unfortunately we fail to reach our community as a
whole, as far as collaboration, or ability to share our meetings in real time
over the wire.
We can have call-in, and that is very helpful, I think realtime voice is
mandatory for what I would like to see happen (could be skype, or similar,
but good 'ol POTS works fine for call-in participation). We need video also.
I really think we as a community fail to leverage the very software we fought
so hard to get, RealPlayer10.
I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants might
connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting, which could be
anything from a presentation, to hands on training, technology updates, and
things that user groups do...
If you could help us with some type of multiplex video software (RealServer
possibly) and have some of your folks help us figure out what we need, to
have live broadcast using RealPlayer10 as the client, that would be
excellent.
This would help our community participate more than any license would. We have
the technology available today, but we're not able to leverage it properly.
With some help we can make some huge gains in educating and reaching out.
Honestly, even if we had to pay BTV's outrageous prices, if we could
broadcast 1 meeting a month and get up to XXX number of connections, this
could be money well spent on the community. I think we can figure something
out that doesn't have so much re-occurring cost. This is something you should
consider more than what license we have.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensola ris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Community Participation
Posted:
Feb 27, 2007 7:05 PM
in response to: jamesd
|
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:27 pm, James Dickens wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at sun dot com> wrote:
> > I would like to see a virtual user group, where all the participants
> > might connect with RealPlayer10 to get a live video of the meeting, which
> > could be
> > anything from a presentation, to hands on training, technology updates,
> > and
> > things that user groups do...
>
> +1 how ever can be done, as long as it happens.
Still looking at what needs to be done, how to get it working, etc...seeing if
the desktop folks can help us, not sure or not.
Being able to broadcast across the web would be a big boost for our community.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James Mansion
james@mansionfamily....
|
|
|
|
RE: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 12:15 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> There are a lot of GPL bigots out there.
And you *want* to appeal to them?
Seriously - why?
Are these bigots running datacentres? Are they running startups that
have a hope in hell of actually making money - as opposed to generating
PR and then just chewing their VC funds?
> a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris use
> that larger body of work.
How? The larger body of work won't be dual-licensed, and won't
have the necessary extra clauses that would allow combination. And
you can run GPL apps on a non-GPL OS anyway.
Please, before we start getting to much in-love with the idea of
community as an end in itself, can we discuss what - and who -
Solaris is *for*.
I'm personally tired of 'open source communities' telling me to
help fix their OS. It happens with BSD as well as Linux, perhaps
more so. And its not condusive to wanting to be an OS user and
develop my own apps.
Don't join them - please! Be the open source OS that has a clear
(and clearly explained) focus on *users* - and if that means that
the would-be community members who want to own it, and want to
have the same-old 'fix it yourself' attitude, are effectively
excluded, then that looks like a Very Good Thing to me.
Please let's start with: who are the most important members of
the community.
Is it:
a) free-as-in-freedom campaigners
b) coders
c) users
I put it to you that to deliver to users needs strong leadership
(NOT some kind of community democracy) and strongly empowered
and directed resource application. This is much more important than
whether or not amateurs get the hump over the controls in the
process. To my mind, its extremely important that Sun maintain
strong control, because Sun *is* experienced with servicing a user
base - and I doubt I'm the only user that wants it to continue
(and improve).
James
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:47 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:56 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
> GPLv3 is taking shape?
Well, it looks ok, but it can and does continue to change.
As long as Sun can license the code to be the most compatible with other open
source software, I could really care less what type of license you put on it.
If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see
that as being healthy for us in any way.
If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some
merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for
OpenSolaris.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:19 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't see
>that as being healthy for us in any way.
Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the
GPL? Is "FSFThink" the only acceptable mindset?
>If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be some
>merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several issues for
>OpenSolaris.
But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will.
The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is "it's not GPL";
at least, I have not heard any rational arguments.
The GPLv3 move seems to have been invented to "fix" that issue
(if it needs fixing, we don't really need license zealots over here;
I say we keep politics out of software and that, to me, means keeping the
politics out of licensing also)
I fear that GPLv3 will do nothing to solve that. I think the
reactions will be predictable:
"Yeah, but Sun helped write GPLv3 so that nobody else could use
it/so that it is less free"
"Yeah, but OpenSolaris is under GPLv*3*; that's not the same
as being under the GPL, that refers to GPLv*2*".
They don't like us and they will continue not to like us.
This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not
need them to like us.
I think the questions that need to be answered have already been
asked but have yet to be answered:
- What problem is being solved by dual licensing?
- 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?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:46 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:19 am, Casper.***@sun.com wrote:
> >If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't
> > see that as being healthy for us in any way.
>
> Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the
> GPL? Is "FSFThink" the only acceptable mindset?
I think we view this differently, but as long as we're considered free, I'm ok
with that.
> >If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be
> > some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several
> > issues for OpenSolaris.
>
> But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will.
I'm not banking on it in any way, it's not even complete.
> The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is "it's not GPL";
> at least, I have not heard any rational arguments.
I think in some ways the reason some have issue with it is that it's Sun.
Wouldn't matter if it was SCSL, or another Sun license, they would take issue
with it.
> They don't like us and they will continue not to like us.
I don't completely believe that 100%.
> This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not
> need them to like us.
Sure, but it does us little good to be at odds with them, I don't see how that
could help us.
> I think the questions that need to be answered have already been
> asked but have yet to be answered:
>
> - What problem is being solved by dual licensing?
I believe so that software can co-exist with other licensed code. I know
you'll argue that CDDL does this today, and at a cost to use in how some open
source communities view it. They view it as Sun, and Sun is bad in their
view.
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.
> - 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 linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's
never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems
should use it.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:06 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote On 01/31/07 17:46,:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 12:19 am, Casper.***@sun.com wrote:
>
>>>If we have issues with GPL, or Debian, or GNU, or FSF, or similar, I don't
>>>see that as being healthy for us in any way.
>>
>>Why not? Are we not allowed to have issues with the FSF, GNU or the
>>GPL? Is "FSFThink" the only acceptable mindset?
>
>
> I think we view this differently, but as long as we're considered free, I'm ok
> with that.
>
>
>>>If GPLv3 would get OpenSolaris closer to being accepted, there could be
>>>some merit with it. I think it's clear that the CDDL raised several
>>>issues for OpenSolaris.
>>
>>But I think one argument is that there's no reason to believe it will.
>
>
> I'm not banking on it in any way, it's not even complete.
>
>
>>The main reason why people have issues with CDDL is "it's not GPL";
>>at least, I have not heard any rational arguments.
>
>
> I think in some ways the reason some have issue with it is that it's Sun.
> Wouldn't matter if it was SCSL, or another Sun license, they would take issue
> with it.
>
>
>>They don't like us and they will continue not to like us.
>
>
> I don't completely believe that 100%.
>
>
>>This is not the playground, we're not kids any more; we should not
>>need them to like us.
>
>
> Sure, but it does us little good to be at odds with them, I don't see how that
> could help us.
I don't think these particular parties will ever agree on the
philosophical issues of the licenses (not in their current form), but I
do think we can earn all the credibility we need with just being
successful in our own right. At the end of the day, it all comes down to
the quality of the code and the viability of the community. We've
already come a long way on these points. So, I guess I agree with bits
of both of your points. :)
>>I think the questions that need to be answered have already been
>>asked but have yet to be answered:
>>
>> - What problem is being solved by dual licensing?
>
>
> I believe so that software can co-exist with other licensed code. I know
> you'll argue that CDDL does this today, and at a cost to use in how some open
> source communities view it. They view it as Sun, and Sun is bad in their
> view.
>
> 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.
>
>
>> - 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 linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's
> never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
> would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems
> should use it.
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:17 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>> - 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 linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's
>never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
>would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems
>should use it.
I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points.
It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely,
but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:29 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points.
I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-)
> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely,
> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2?
This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a
following to support it. Certainly time will show-all.
I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3,
but we're not in dire need anymore for drivers, not the top tier ones, we
have pretty good support. What's funny is, do people actually use Becker's
drivers anymore? I mean, who uses 3Com cards these days? I'm sure some Linux
folks have 3Com cards laying around, but I don't see many 3Com cards these
days that folks are buying new.
As I said Casper, I am not partial to the license, I just want the best for
the software to allow it to co-exist with other open source software. I don't
want you to pit me up as a GPLv3 supporter, I would support it if it would
help our cause. I'm fine with not using GPLv3, and quite honestly, I am fine
with leaving things CDDL as they are as well.
Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect
distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:57 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points.
>
>I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-)
>
>> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely,
>> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2?
>
>This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a
>following to support it. Certainly time will show-all.
Which is why "now" is probably the wrong time to make any decision
about GPLv3.
I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g.,
a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of
convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would
be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon.
Not if this turns out to be the event in history that is later remembered
as "don't try to revise the GPL, we've tried that once and we failed".
And for all the code moving to GPLv3, I can easily imagine that
this too will cause a fork in the community, as all "GPLv2 or later"
or "FSF own copyright" code can easily be forked to "GPLv2 or bust"
licensing.
>Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect
>distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags.
I would say that the CDDL license creates a level playing field;
if you can't abide by the rules in that field, then you cannot play.
We're not here to make live easy for anyone, or hard for that matter.
We can consider issues raised but we then need to carefully weigh all
the pros and cons.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 3:28 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>>> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points.
>> I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-)
>>
>>> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking explicitely,
>>> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2?
>> This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there will be a
>> following to support it. Certainly time will show-all.
>
> Which is why "now" is probably the wrong time to make any decision
> about GPLv3.
>
> I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g.,
> a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of
> convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would
> be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon.
Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the
biggest issue in "porting" Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ?
There are huge technical issues as well- and they are (or should be!)
much more interesting!
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:00 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
>Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the
>biggest issue in "porting" Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ?
Depends on the type of driver; but in some cases this is true; if not,
it would not have been possible to create the device driver porting
kit. It required little work on the driver.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 2:08 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the
> >biggest issue in "porting" Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ?
>
> Depends on the type of driver; but in some cases this is true; if not,
> it would not have been possible to create the device driver porting
> kit. It required little work on the driver.
Cold you explain a case where the license will be a problem?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:01 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 02:17 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two points.
>>>
>>> I didn't *carefully* neglect it.;-)
>>>
>>>> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver linking
>>>> explicitely,
>>>> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains GPLv2?
>>>
>>> This could be a reality, but I suspect once the GPLv3 is out, there
>>> will be a following to support it. Certainly time will show-all.
>>
>>
>> Which is why "now" is probably the wrong time to make any decision
>> about GPLv3.
>>
>> I see no benefit in us being early adopters; if there is movement, e.g.,
>> a movement to accept GPLv3 drivers into Linux and a subsequent hint of
>> convergence between *BSD and Linux device drivers, then that would
>> be the time to jump on the bandwagon. But only when it is a bandwagon.
>
>
> Why oh why do so many people seem to believe that the license is the
> biggest issue in "porting" Linux kernel device drivers to OpenSolaris ?
>
> There are huge technical issues as well- and they are (or should be!)
> much more interesting!
>
>From the few I've studied, porting = rewrite!
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 7:54 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3,
I doubt you'll see *anyone* release drivers under GPLv3, since that would
make them incompatible with the licenses for all open source OS'es - you
couldn't put them in Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 7:58 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
>Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under GPLv3,
>
>I doubt you'll see *anyone* release drivers under GPLv3, since that would
>make them incompatible with the licenses for all open source OS'es - you
>couldn't put them in Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris.
I thought it was claimed that that was not the case.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:33 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:54 am, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > I doubt we'll see the hardcore folks like Becker release drivers under
> > GPLv3,
>
> I doubt you'll see *anyone* release drivers under GPLv3, since that would
> make them incompatible with the licenses for all open source OS'es - you
> couldn't put them in Linux, BSD, or OpenSolaris.
Really? I thought that was one of the things that was being clarified, that
the intention was always for people to be able to use the code, rather than
prevent them from doing so, no matter what platform they're on.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:57 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at Sun dot Com> wrote:
> Our biggest concern should be with any issues on licensing that could effect
> distributions. That's the area where Nexenta seemed to run into snags.
This is not a problem that is caused by the CDDL but by the fact that some
people at Debian missinterpret the GPL. The way the GPL is missinterpreted by
these people would in consequence make the GPL a definitely non-free license
according to the Debiam DFSG.
A problem like this that is caused by people and not by license issues cannot
be cured by license actions but only by talking to these people.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (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 at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:07 PM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
>
> >> - 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 linking with the kernel, not that
> these are an issue, it's
> >never been take to and proven in court either way.
> I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
> >would remove that problem and allow all code to be
> used however the systems
> >should use it.
>
> I see you carefully neglected the first of these two
> points.
>
> It's all fine and good if GLPv3 allows device driver
> linking explicitely,
> but what if the main source of GPL'ed drivers remains
> GPLv2?
>
> Casper
Agreed, what good will it do then? As it is right now, there is nothing stopping someone from porting Linux drivers to Solaris/OpenSolaris and distributing them so that users can use them. The only thing we can't do is integrate them directly into OpenSolaris derivatives directly (possibly, I am not a lawyer). If they were the same license, it wouldn't matter much to our main project anyway since we likely couldn't get the copyright attribution we need to integrate it!
So, again, what's the point?
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 3:25 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> For me the big difference is the fact that GPLv3 will remove the grey area of
> device drivers and linking with the kernel, not that these are an issue, it's
> never been take to and proven in court either way. I'm *HOPING* that GPLv3
> would remove that problem and allow all code to be used however the systems
> should use it.
I actually think it makes it MUCH more complex.
It was possible *before* OpenSolaris to write and legally ship a GPLv2
device driver for Solaris if you stuck to the DDI. This is really no
different that writing a GPLv2 application that uses a closed source libc.
It is still possible today.
Today it is possible to do more with the CDDL because you can now
"share" code with other drivers and be "fully" open source or just use
individual files from them (and publish your changes if you make any)
and keep other bits closed if you wish.
I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understand, and a dual
licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to understand
for developers.
Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge
amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual
licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a good
solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which
license it is under (just like the BSD license did).
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
976
From:
Винницкая область — область на западе Украины. (Vinnitsya, Ukraine)
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 3:45 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
> I think GPLv3 will make this MUCH harder to understa*****nd a dual
> licensed GPLv3 and CDDL kernel makes this near impossible to
> understand for developers.
>
>
> Remember most people here are not trained lawyers or even have a huge
> amount of formal exposer to the legal issues of derived works and dual
> licensing. Lets keep things SIMPLE for the developers. CDDL is a
> good solution for that - it makes it clear for every single file which
> license it is under (just like the BSD license did).
>
>
Sure.
But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to
***** OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n
Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not.
Remember XFree vs. Xorg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy
Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg?
They all have neglected XFree ...
In an ideal world, the _best_ solutions would win over the less
beautiful ones.
But we don't live in such a world.
I'm not a licensing expert (nor did I want to be one).
But I'm following a few news sites/formus/boards/discussions/irc.
OpenSolaris' general acceptance would certainly increase dramatically.
And therefore probably attract more contributors and of course globally
feed the community.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:07 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
>But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to
>***** OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n
>Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not.
That's what I don't agree with; they'll bit it's not under the GPL
and then they'll ***** it's not under GPLv2. (The one true GPL)
Let them *****.
>Remember XFree vs. Xorg:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy
>Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg?
>They all have neglected XFree ...
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand; XFree86 added an
advertising clause; that is unacceptable to many.
It is kinda strange that the FSF feels so strongly about this;
afterall, after the terms and conditions they include the following in
the file COPYING:
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
US
Registered:
12/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 4:08 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
Martin Bochnig wrote:
>
> But the whole press_world (and readers/communities) will continue to
> ***** OpenSolaris, if it is not - somehow - licensed under GPL.n
> Whether anybody (who isn't a lawyer) understands the details, or not.
>
> Remember XFree vs. Xorg:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Licensing_controversy
> Question: Which distribution of whatever UNIX/lin-UX has not moved to Xorg?
> They all have neglected XFree ...
>
You can't compare this to the XFree86 licensing issue. XFree86 actually
moved to a *more restrictive* license. If any open source project moves
to a license that is considered to be more restrictive, while it is
already under widespread use, it is only natural that there would be a
problem.
In this case (yes, this is my personal opinion), the main problem is
distrust of Sun, being a big company. The CDDL was created by Sun, so
there is distrust there. I think it is more important to gain the trust
of the community by showing that we're very serious and committed to
open source, by making the transition to open development complete, and
have more easily accessible bugfiling/reviewing/committing mechanisms in
place.
It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant, and
if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual licensing? I
have my doubts.
- Frank
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:16 AM
in response to: fvdl
|
|
On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
>
> It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
> OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,
> and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual
> licensing? I have my doubts.
I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge
mess of the project.
Really, I think if Sun wants to go GPLv3, it should be an explicit
license change
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:51 AM
in response to: error404
|
|
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
> On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
>
> >
> > It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
> > OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,
> > and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual
> > licensing? I have my doubts.
>
> I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge
> mess of the project.
It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt
dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned,
"assembly exception" could be provided, this is the tool Sun should use
to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation issues.
I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it
will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This
would be a positive strategic step.
I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will force
it in distributions and because of "GPLv2 or later" clause in source
files.
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:21 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
On 31-Jan-07, at 8:51 AM, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
>>> OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,
>>> and if so, does it outweigh the complexity and pitfalls of dual
>>> licensing? I have my doubts.
>>
>> I really don't like the idea of dual-licensing. It'd just make a huge
>> mess of the project.
>
> It sounds to me anti-GPL folks over here confused you. I doubt
> dual-licensing is that messy as they claim. As Stephen mentioned,
> "assembly exception" could be provided, this is the tool Sun should
> use
> to prevent possible single-license forking and code aggregation
> issues.
I meant more for contributors who want to pull in changes from
another gpl3 project, for example... it won't be possible to package
that with the CDDL fork of opensolaris, only the gpl3 fork
> I think GPLv3 licensed OpenSolaris is a *good* thing and I believe it
> will increase our community and make it stronger dramatically. This
> would be a positive strategic step.
I absolutely agree. I'm pro-gpl3, just not pro dual license
> I think GPLv3 will be widely accepted just because of FSF/GNU will
> force
> it in distributions and because of "GPLv2 or later" clause in source
> files.
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 amount of code or advertising in
the world
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:52 PM
in response to: error404
|
|
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 amount of code or advertising in
> the world
Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
| | | |
