|
Replies:
85
-
Last Post:
Sep 7, 2006 7:16 PM
by: jcc3
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
69
From:
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:01 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
> There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list,
which includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but
also Sun employees who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related
information to respsond to this imaginary "war" you've greated?
I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the debian-legal
discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2) Joerg has
failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that forbids
anyone to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact
that Joerg has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects
Debian to distribute it.
The *real* reasons why Debian has removed cdrecord are (2) and (3).
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
69
From:
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:08 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a user to
change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
Thanks,
Derek E. Lewis
dlewis at solnetworks dot net
http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
>> There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
>
> s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
>
> Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list, which
> includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but also Sun employees
> who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related information to respsond to this
> imaginary "war" you've greated?
>
> I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the debian-legal
> discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2) Joerg has
> failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that forbids anyone
> to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact that Joerg
> has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects Debian to
> distribute it.
>
> The *real* reasons why Debian has removed cdrecord are (2) and (3).
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
2/21/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:15 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
I can't speak for everybody, but personally I was not discussing nor Joerg/cdrecord/Debian. I learned a long time ago to stay out of such discussions. I have not read debian-legal, nor do I care to - this issue is not one which concerns me, at all.
My responses have been in response to the comments/blog posts made by Danese Cooper, and nobody else.
I find it amazing you think that everyone taking part of this discussion is involved in the whole Joerg vs. Debian war. It's none of my business, and I am staying as far away as I can. I can still have valid views concernig Danese's comments, and it does not require debian-legal to have such views.
Please do not add more fuel to the fire, it is already annoying enough as it is. You're doing no better than the person you seem to loathe at this point in time.
Thanks,
David
> Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a
> user to
> change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Derek E. Lewis
> dlewis at solnetworks dot net
> http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
>
> >> There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
> >
> > s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
> >
> > Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing
> list, which
> > includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but also
> Sun employees
> > who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related information to
> respsond to this
> > imaginary "war" you've greated?
> >
> > I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the
> debian-legal
> > discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2)
> Joerg has
> > failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that
> forbids anyone
> > to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact
> that Joerg
> > has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects Debian
> to
> > distribute it.
> >
> > The *real* reasons why Debian has removed cdrecord are (2) and (3).
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
69
From:
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:23 PM
in response to: ormandj
|
|
Joerg has given the mailing list the impression that there is an on-going
war against the CDDL by Debian, and certain Sun employees are willing to
change various OpenSolaris-related informational materials (such as the
CDDL FAQ) to respond to it. The fact that Debian is anti-CDDL is blatantly
false, and mis-represents why Debian has removed cdrecord from their
package repositories. If you don't want to be informed about these
issues, great -- you shouldn't create pejorative replies, though. It is
obvious the creator of this thread thinks that there is a war, started by
Debian, against the CDDL.
Derek E. Lewis
dlewis at solnetworks dot net
http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, David J. Orman wrote:
> I can't speak for everybody, but personally I was not discussing nor Joerg/cdrecord/Debian. I learned a long time ago to stay out of such discussions. I have not read debian-legal, nor do I care to - this issue is not one which concerns me, at all.
>
> My responses have been in response to the comments/blog posts made by Danese Cooper, and nobody else.
>
> I find it amazing you think that everyone taking part of this discussion is involved in the whole Joerg vs. Debian war. It's none of my business, and I am staying as far away as I can. I can still have valid views concernig Danese's comments, and it does not require debian-legal to have such views.
>
> Please do not add more fuel to the fire, it is already annoying enough as it is. You're doing no better than the person you seem to loathe at this point in time.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a
>> user to
>> change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Derek E. Lewis
>> dlewis at solnetworks dot net
>> http://riemann.solnetworks.net/~dlewis
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
>>>
>>> s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
>>>
>>> Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing
>> list, which
>>> includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but also
>> Sun employees
>>> who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related information to
>> respsond to this
>>> imaginary "war" you've greated?
>>>
>>> I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the
>> debian-legal
>>> discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2)
>> Joerg has
>>> failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that
>> forbids anyone
>>> to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact
>> that Joerg
>>> has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects Debian
>> to
>>> distribute it.
>>>
>>> The *real* reasons why Debian has removed cdrecord are (2) and (3).
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>>> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
2/21/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:31 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
> Joerg has given the mailing list the impression that there is an on-
> going
> war against the CDDL by Debian, and certain Sun employees are
> willing to
> change various OpenSolaris-related informational materials (such as
> the
> CDDL FAQ) to respond to it. The fact that Debian is anti-CDDL is
> blatantly
> false, and mis-represents why Debian has removed cdrecord from
> their
> package repositories.
No such thing has been done. I am sorry that you feel we are incapable of interpreting things on our own. Joerg's sentiment is his sentiment, I am staying out of that battle as I said - I am quite clearly ONLY operating on information I have gotten on my OWN, without help of Joerg. I wouldn't have cared who started the thread, I did my own research and came to my own opinions.
> If you don't want to be informed about these
> issues, great -- you shouldn't create pejorative replies, though.
> It is
> obvious the creator of this thread thinks that there is a war,
> started by
> Debian, against the CDDL.
Again, I will tell you, I do not care about this "war" you keep discussing. Most of this thread has been about this Danese's comments unrelated to Joerg. Yet you come, and perpetuate the very "war" you claim to want to end. Your mails are becoming rather ironic, and bothersome.
Good day,
David
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:24 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
"Derek E. Lewis" <dlewis at solnetworks dot net> wrote:
> Clarrification: "Joerg added conditions to cdrecord that forbids a user to
> change certain lines in the code and then distribute it"
Calrification: this is well known FUD and incorrect.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:23 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
"Derek E. Lewis" <dlewis at solnetworks dot net> wrote:
> > There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris and me.
>
> s/the CDDL, OpenSolaris and //
>
> Would you please stop mis-representing the issue to this mailing list,
> which includes various people who are unassociated with Sun, but
> also Sun employees who are willing to modify OpenSolaris-related
> information to respsond to this imaginary "war" you've greated?
Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
Everyone who reads e.g. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77565
knows that this is definitely a campaign against OpenSolaris.
> I find it amazing that (1) no one in this thread has read the debian-legal
> discussion regarding the removal of cdrecord and the CDDL (2) Joerg has
> failed to mention that he's added conditions to cdrecord that forbids
> anyone to modify the line(s) and distributed the code and (3) the fact
> that Joerg has combined GPL'd and CDDL'd code in cdrecord and expects
> Debian to distribute it.
You seem to be an agent provotative from Debian and spread obvious lies.
The problem with Debian is that they distribute variants from cdrtools that
have easy to prove bugs introduced by Debian and that do not behave as
documented in the official documentation.
Not to your claims:
Aprox. 4 years ago, there was a discussion with people from debian about
a few parts in cdrtools that may only be modified
in case you change the name of the beast.
At that time, there have been people at debian who have been able to have
rational decisions.....and accepted this as fully DFSG compatible.
For the recent license change: I did make clear why there is no problem to
distribite this special kind of combination of CDDL & GPL code. In case you
carefully listen to Eben Moglen, you will understand why the specific
combination used by me is legal although not every possible CDDL/GPL
combination is OK.
But I am sure, you know this already and only like to put fuel
into a fire lit by Debian....
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:
69
From:
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:35 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
Absolutely, but that would require you stop mis-representing the nature of
the CDDL, the GPL, and the certain conditions you've created that surround
cdrecord.
> Everyone who reads e.g. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77565
> knows that this is definitely a campaign against OpenSolaris.
If there is a campaign against OpenSolaris and the CDDL, then it is you
who created it when you mis-represented the nature of the CDDL, the GPL,
and cdrecord to the debian-legal mailing list when they discussed the CDDL
and removal of cdrecord (separate discussions, IIRC)
> You seem to be an agent provotative from Debian and spread obvious lies.
I currently do not use Debian and I am not even subscribed to any
Debian-related mailing list (official or unofficial, whatsoever). In fact,
I'm an OpenSolaris community member that is concerned about you are
mis-representing the community that I'm am a part of, not to mention the
licenses of several pieces of software that I use regularly.
> Aprox. 4 years ago, there was a discussion with people from debian about
> a few parts in cdrtools that may only be modified
>
> in case you change the name of the beast.
>
> At that time, there have been people at debian who have been able to have
> rational decisions.....and accepted this as fully DFSG compatible.
You still added a condition that forbids a user to change certain lines of
code when the user chooses to distribute it. This is a (questionable)
extraneous condition.
Given the particular debian-legal thread I read started in approximately
April of 2005 (where this was brought up), this still seems to be an
issue.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 1:39 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
"Derek E. Lewis" <dlewis at solnetworks dot net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
>
> Absolutely, but that would require you stop mis-representing the nature of
> the CDDL, the GPL, and the certain conditions you've created that surround
> cdrecord.
This is just a note to you that I will not send any further reply on your
incorrect claims in order to prevent a useless flame war induced by you.
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:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 6:41 AM
in response to: dlewis
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> In fact,
> I'm an OpenSolaris community member that is concerned
> about you are
> mis-representing the community that I'm am a part of,
> not to mention the
> licenses of several pieces of software that I use
> regularly.
That's funny. If there is one OpenSolaris community member that we could pick out as a representative of OpenSolaris, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about picking Joerg Schilling!
As far as I'm concerned, Joerg is not misrepresenting the community, on the contrary. We need more Joerg Schillings in the OpenSolaris community!
The GPL FUD can stay with Linux. It has no place in OpenSolaris, and neither does this discussion.
Message was edited by:
ux-admin
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 6:36 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> There is a big campaign against the CDDL, OpenSolaris
> and me.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they try to fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 10:23 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
Solaris.
But since "GPL Compatible" really only means "You can rip of this
license and replace it with the GPL", a "GPL Compatible" license
would not have guaranteed code be given back to OpenSolaris.
I.e., the peole involved in the license drafting were opposed to
the "GPL Compatible" New BSD license.
Note also that GPL Incompatible is generally not an issue;
people still run Apache which is using a "GPL Incompatible"
license.
The way Danese Cooper said it was malicious; I think it was wrong
not to protest at the way she said it or even the substance. Sun
has released a lot of code under the GPL.
Who is Danese Cooper anyway?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 10:33 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>
> Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
> involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
> the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
> Solaris.
This is exactly what I have in mind from my talk with Andy Tucker
in September 2004.
Andy asked me about what I am thinking of a license that is GPL imcompatible
by intention and I replied to him that this would cause a lot of trouble.
Andy was very glad to hear this and told me that he has the same impression.
We did talk more in detail and agreed in the impression that Sun has a lug
by the fact that Sun inventions are seen first on Solaris and that people could
re-implement any invention regardless of the license, so it even makes no
sense to have a license that is incompatible to the GPL.
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:
316
From:
Milwaukee WI
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 10:45 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On 9/4/06, Casper.***@sun.com <Casper.***@sun.com> wrote:
>
>
> Danese Cooper is wrong in that many of the folks who were
> involved in picking of the license wanted the GPL but that
> the GPL did not qualify because of all the encumbered code in
> Solaris.
>
> But since "GPL Compatible" really only means "You can rip of this
> license and replace it with the GPL", a "GPL Compatible" license
> would not have guaranteed code be given back to OpenSolaris.
>
> I.e., the peole involved in the license drafting were opposed to
> the "GPL Compatible" New BSD license.
>
>
> Note also that GPL Incompatible is generally not an issue;
> people still run Apache which is using a "GPL Incompatible"
> license.
>
> The way Danese Cooper said it was malicious; I think it was wrong
> not to protest at the way she said it or even the substance. Sun
> has released a lot of code under the GPL.
>
> Who is Danese Cooper anyway?
former sun employee, member of the opensolaris pilot project they are
using to give the appearance as having inside information that makes
the CDDL and the people behind it look evil.
James Dickens
uadmin.blogpsot.com
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 11:26 AM
in response to: jamesd
|
|
>former sun employee, member of the opensolaris pilot project they are
>using to give the appearance as having inside information that makes
>the CDDL and the people behind it look evil.
I know; but *who* is she?
It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they invariably
neglect to mention that the FSF says the *exact* same things about
the Apache 2.0 license yet Apache 2.0 is still part of Debian.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 11:54 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
>
>>former sun employee, member of the opensolaris pilot project they are
>>using to give the appearance as having inside information that makes
>>the CDDL and the people behind it look evil.
>
> I know; but *who* is she?
I think we all know that she was a lot more than just some Sun employee.
How soon people forget.
She was :
Danese Cooper
danese dot cooper at sun dot com
Chief Open Source Evangelist
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Back in December of 2004 she was critical to the creation of the CDDL as
well as the relationship between Sun and the OSI.
See http://www.opensource.org/docs/board.html
Danese Cooper - Secretary/Treasurer
Danese Cooper has a 15-year history in the software industry and has
long been an advocate for transparent development methodologies. Danese
worked for six years at Sun Microsystems, Inc. on the inception and growth
of the various open source projects sponsored by Sun (including
OpenOffice.org, java.net and blogs.sun.com). She was Sun's Chief Open
Source Evangelist and founded Sun's Open Source Programs Office. She has
unique experience implementing open source projects from within a large
proprietary company. She joined the OSI Board in December 2001 and
currently serves as Secretary & Treasurer. As of March 2005 Danese has
joined Intel to advise on open source projects, investment and support.
She speaks internationally on Open Source and Licensing issues.
It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on the CDDL
issues.
> It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they invariably
> neglect to mention that the FSF says the *exact* same things about
> the Apache 2.0 license yet Apache 2.0 is still part of Debian.
The issues between the CDDL and GPL and Linux versus UNIX will go away
about as fast as racism has gone away. Its primarily emotional and not
technical. Perhaps we really need a Martin Luther King style inspired
leader that will cut through the problems and the differences. Let's
face it, we are talking about software here, not peoples lives and
freedoms regardless of what Richard Stallman says.
Dennis Clarke
Director Blastwave.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 11:59 AM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
"Dennis Clarke" <dclarke at blastwave dot org> wrote:
> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on the CDDL
> issues.
OK, then let us try to find out why she does not tell the truth when she talks
about the CDDL in public.
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:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 2:07 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
> the CDDL
> issues.
Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way
because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is
representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she
claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of
using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait
for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal}
meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the
statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to
a united FOSS movement.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
937
From:
AU
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 2:11 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on the CDDL
>> issues.
>
> Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
> engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because
> she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative
> of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with
> many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but
> the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license
> revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am
> still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was
> spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement.
Simon, are you going to make a statement / write an open letter
to her etc which will set things straight?
James C. McPherson
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 2:17 PM
in response to: jmcp
|
|
On Sep 4, 2006, at 22:13, James C. McPherson wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
>>> the CDDL
>>> issues.
>> Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the
>> Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this
>> way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view
>> is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she
>> claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of
>> using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait
>> for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal}
>> meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for
>> the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an
>> obstacle to a united FOSS movement.
>
> Simon, are you going to make a statement / write an open letter
> to her etc which will set things straight?
I'm considering blogging it but the statement I just made is public.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
198
From:
Shanghai
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 5:03 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
On 9/4/06, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
>
> > Simon, are you going to make a statement / write an open letter
> > to her etc which will set things straight?
>
> I'm considering blogging it but the statement I just made is public.
>
FYI,
I consider this as Debian's "official" interpretation and decision on
this issue:
http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
There're a few general statements (not specific to cdrtools' case) in
that email you can respond to (if you choose so).
Tao
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made
incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 4:29 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
>
> On Sep 4, 2006, at 19:54, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on
>> the CDDL issues.
>
> Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris
> engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way
> because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is
> representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she
> claims.
So then, her opinion is pure emotion in the absence of data.
> She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of
> using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait
> for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal}
> meant that this was not possible.
Based on her position inside Sun as well as her dealings with the OSI
I simply made the assumption that she was a CDDL expert. Someone that
worked on it and help to craft it. I understood that she left Sun for
her own reasons and I remember her last day at Sun quite clearly. I
had dealings with her in 2004 and 2005 and at all times I was impressed
with her character and her understanding and insight into the open source
world. She was up front and blunt with brains also.
> I am still furious with her for the
> statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to
> a united FOSS movement.
So then you also have your own emotions to bring to the table.
I on the other hand have none, I simply want software to work and to be
easily available to the end user. Free would be nice too. No one would
argue that Jörg is a great asset to the OpenSolaris project as well as
a powerhouse in the open source world. His software has been around a
very long time and if the Debian people have an issue with the CDDL then
I wonder if its the CDDL or rather Jörg that annoys them? Emotions at
the table again perhaps.
I think I'd really like to focus on making the software work or at least,
in the absence of great engineering skills, help other people to make the
software work. At this point I no longer get in a twist over the CDDL vs
GPL vs BSD licenses. Those licenses don't make software work. It is the
people that do the work night and day in their basements at night that
are the real open source world.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 4:56 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
"Dennis Clarke" <dclarke at blastwave dot org> wrote:
> a powerhouse in the open source world. His software has been around a
> very long time and if the Debian people have an issue with the CDDL then
> I wonder if its the CDDL or rather Jörg that annoys them? Emotions at
> the table again perhaps.
The agressions from Debian against the CDDL did not start when I started
to convert star completely to CDDL in februaray 2005, they did not start
when I published a new cdrtools version in March 2005 when I did use the
new CDDL based version of the schily makefilesystem...
The agressions against the CDDL did start when Nexenta came up in September 2005.
Before that time, Debian accepted the existance of CDDL based programs.
The agreesions against my software did start in January 2006 without
any reason, so I asume that they decided to use me as a guinea pig......
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:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 7:19 AM
in response to: dclarke
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I think I'd really like to focus on making the
> software work or at least,
> in the absence of great engineering skills, help
> other people to make the
> software work. At this point I no longer get in a
> twist over the CDDL vs
> GPL vs BSD licenses. Those licenses don't make
> software work. It is the
> people that do the work night and day in their
> basements at night that
> are the real open source world.
How true your observation is.
Jonathan's "participation age" might just turn out to be think tanks of passionate people cranking away in a basement - the new personal datacenter!
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
2/21/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 12:02 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
> I know; but *who* is she?
>
> It is interesting how people quote the FSF on the CDDL; they
> invariablyneglect to mention that the FSF says the *exact* same
> things about
> the Apache 2.0 license yet Apache 2.0 is still part of Debian.
>
> Casper
This is her:
http://www.perl.com/supersnail/os2002/images/small/os6_d5_f0688_sm.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danese_Cooper
It seems she is really good at burning her past employeers, talk about a way to say screw-you to 6 years worth of work on her resume.
Reading her blog, I am not very impressed, she seems to be very talkative but not many "potatoes" are involved, just lots of "gravy".
I am very surprised about her comments re: cddl. Then again, most people go wherever the wind blows them, and it sounds like she has picked a stance that is not exactly "kind" to Sun/CDDL. The problem with this being, I believe she was one of the "big" people at Sun behind the CDDL, and it looks pretty bad. Unfortunately I am not a Sun employee nor was I present during all of the decision making process behind CDDL, but if she didn't seem to be so good at ranting, I'd almost be tempted to believe her (that and the logic behind picking a license that doesn't allow the virulent GPL to take over your code seems sound to me...). Take it as you will. That being said, I also really wouldn't care if the CDDL was choosen simply to disallow GPL "infection" - I don't like the GPL.
I think we've got a pretty big PR disaster brewing though, too many people are being really confrontational (or have in the past) and people are getting *personally* offended it seems, and getting *revenge* for that. This is never a good way to handle things, and this whole mess probably could have been avoided with more diplomatic handling (and no, I don't like politics, but they are a part of life no matter where you live..)
I think a very clear written one to two page rebuttle with absolute proof or very clear logic behind the choice of CDDL released without much fanfare would be the best approach to extinguishing this current fire, anything more and you're just going to be pouring petrol.
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 12:22 PM
in response to: ormandj
|
|
>I think a very clear written one to two page rebuttle with absolute
>proof or very clear logic behi nd the choice of CDDL released without
>much fanfare would be the best approach to extinguishing thi s current
>fire, anything more and you're just going to be pouring petrol.
It would be nice if such a thing would be possible; I think we certainly
should expound the CDDL FAQ some, specifically those points which are
seen controversial.
None of the controversy seems to be backed with legal opinions;
the majority of the argument seems to be "I can read, therefor I can
read law".
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
192
From:
Registered:
2/21/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 12:31 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
> It would be nice if such a thing would be possible; I think we
> certainlyshould expound the CDDL FAQ some, specifically those
> points which are
> seen controversial.
I was meaning something to specifically address the issues that are being put forth right now. Not a general CDDL defense paper. That would, of course, take much more than a page or two. It probably WOULD be a wise thing to work on, as well.
> None of the controversy seems to be backed with legal opinions;
> the majority of the argument seems to be "I can read, therefor I can
> read law".
When you are dealing with the equivilant of modern day hippies, this should be the expected mode of operation. There really isn't much "argument" at all, except for the people who are riding these waves as surfers, throwing punches and kicking for the heck of it. Basically, a VERY vocal minority and a very non-caring majority. This is why a simple, blunt, and non-offensive/non-antagonistic rebuttle to her *specific* claims that is absolutely based on and representative of fact - released in a quiet fashion, would be ideal.
David
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 12:43 PM
in response to: ormandj
|
|
> When you are dealing with the equivilant of modern day hippies, this should
> be the expected mode of operation. There really isn't much "argument" at
> all, except for the people who are riding these waves as surfers, throwing
> punches and kicking for the heck of it. Basically, a VERY vocal minority and
> a very non-caring majority.
I think that you just described modern "democracy". Something that is both
a farce and a total failure at the same time. I really shouldn't venture
into that one however or a Michael Moore movie might suddenly start.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 3:47 PM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I really don't understand why we are all supposed to care so much about what Debian do, or what Danese Cooper said. Debian have their own licensing culture, and it's only right and proper that they decide what fits in with their world view. As others have already pointed out this isn't a purely GPL versus non-GPL thing as they seem comfortable with the Apache license, and presumably the CDDL's first cousin the MPL - I assume Debian includes code that is covered under the MPL. I think characterising this as an attack by Debian on the CDDL is a little melodramatic.
As for Danese, well she chose to go work for someone else, and as I understand it the comments she made about the CDDL were after she left Sun. I'm therefore a little puzzled as to why her opinions would be taken as representing Sun's "official" position when they clearly are not.
My opinion (and purely mine) is that this is a matter for Joerg and Debian to sort out - just because the CDDL was reused for cdrtools it doesn't follow that this is some sort of war between Debian and OpenSolaris, or between the GPL and the CDDL.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
69
From:
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 6:01 PM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
I may need to re-watch the Debconf video again, but I don't recall Simon
or Danese clarrifying her current employment status at Sun, so I can see
why anyone who watched the video and possibly those in attendance to the
conference would think that Danese was still an employee of Sun, and thus
could speak for them.
I, myself, only watched the video a couple of weeks ago, and I was
constantly under the impression that Danese still worked for Sun, until I
saw another Debconf video of her doing a talk in regards to Intel's open
source initiatives, which she then pointed at that she was Intel's Open
Source Officer (paraphrasing).
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 6:58 PM
in response to: dlewis
|
|
How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
not by flames.
cheers,
steve
(note: this is not intended to be directed at Derek, his was just the
last email in my thread to hit reply to)
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:01:23PM -0500, Derek E. Lewis wrote:
> I may need to re-watch the Debconf video again, but I don't recall Simon
> or Danese clarrifying her current employment status at Sun, so I can see
> why anyone who watched the video and possibly those in attendance to the
> conference would think that Danese was still an employee of Sun, and thus
> could speak for them.
>
> I, myself, only watched the video a couple of weeks ago, and I was
> constantly under the impression that Danese still worked for Sun, until I
> saw another Debconf video of her doing a talk in regards to Intel's open
> source initiatives, which she then pointed at that she was Intel's Open
> Source Officer (paraphrasing).
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 4, 2006 7:15 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau wrote On 09/05/06 10:58,:
> How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
> posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
> and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
>
> The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
> not by flames.
I agree. I like the idea of focusing on OpenSolaris development on
OpenSolaris lists. That is the most effective way we can build our
community.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 2:54 AM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau <stevel at sun dot com> wrote:
> How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
> posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
> and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
>
> The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
> not by flames.
For the long term, this is the right strategy....
Unfortunately not for the short term.
As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
As long as institutions like lwn, Heise, Pro-Linux.de speak to the mouth
of Debian and claim unchallenged that the pure fact that I am working
to help the OpenSolaris project was an agression against Debian, the
OpenSolaris project will have problems get to the point you are talking about.
One reason why the speeches of Josef Göbbels have been so successful was the
fact that they looked as if they were based on facts and nobody did
contradict....
>From my understanding it is important that Sun will offer more information on
the background for choosing CDDL (similar to what I know from my discussions
with Andy Tucker). This should be done in a way that results in truely
independent and multiple quotable information sources....
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 3:22 AM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau <stevel at sun dot com> wrote:
> How about we all just ignore Danese. Ignore Debian. Ignore whatever
> posturing is going on about whatever license on whatever forum/list,
> and just get back to working on OpenSolaris.
>
> The best way to get people to shut up is to demonstrate it by code,
> not by flames.
Let me also answer by nitpicking....
Answering by code would mean that I should be able to e.g. replace
GNU fnmatch by Solaris fnmatch in a project, but the related source
is still missing.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Roberto J. Dohn...
robertdohnert@mailsh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,119
From:
Registered:
7/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 3:19 PM
in response to: Roberto J. Dohn...
|
|
Since I work on an free software project at Sun (GNOME), I have worked a
bit with Danese, and must say that I have been less than impressed by
her work. She is friendly and enjoyable to talk to, but seemed less
than helpful in any real sense.
She attended the 2005 GUADEC in Norway with my team and represented
Sun at the GNOME Advisory board. Oddly, she did not have anything to
say in the meeting and instead sat quietly knitting. During the course
of the conference, I overheard her talk to a number of people in the
free software community and she consistently portrayed Sun in a
negative light and seemed to see herself as the lone person in the
company who was trying to get Sun to see the "right" way to do free
software. She seemed to always side with the GPL folks in any
discussion. I never heard her say anything constructive, she instead
seemed to focus on what seemed unresolvable issues.
While working with her, I identified a number of tasks where the GNOME
project needed help. We discussed ways to improve relationships between
ARC and the GNOME project and also relationships between Java and the
GNOME team. She told us that she would help, provide contacts, and
help get some forward direction in these areas, but never followed
through. Although she did focus some of her time on the GNOME project,
I am unaware that she actually did anything helpful for our team.
I've talked with some friends of mine at Intel who have more recently
been working with Danese, and have heard similarly negative things
about her. I won't delve into hearsay, but it seems to confirm my
impressions working with her.
Is anybody aware if Danese actually did anything useful while working
at Sun?
Brian
> Danese Cooper has always struck me a GPL biased individual. If its not
> GPL its not good enough.
>
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> cdrtools forked by Debian Project, claims that build system is incompatible, Joerg is wrong, they know better, and that Danese Cooper claims that the CDDL was purposefully made CDDL GPL incompatible:
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00002.html
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/04/1335226
>>
>> Video times with Danese's speech is from:
>> http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
>> 27 minutes 27 seconds through 28 minutes 24 seconds
>>
>> Just what we needed.
>>
>>
>> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-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: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 3:51 PM
in response to: yippi
|
|
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 03:19 pm, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Since I work on an free software project at Sun (GNOME), I have worked a
> bit with Danese, and must say that I have been less than impressed by
> her work. She is friendly and enjoyable to talk to, but seemed less
> than helpful in any real sense.
In some ways Danese has some good points, IMO, but I certainly don't agree
with how she portrays Sun vs. GPL, and not clear what her motive for
portraying us like that.
She does work in Intel now and I wouldn't say Intel has been the friendliest
player out on the open source world, so let's hope she can start focusing on
either working with us while she's at Intel, or hoping she'll realize she has
an entire company to find fault with.
My only comment is that I feel she really mis-represents the Solaris Engineers
in her strong comments about "Sun vs GPL". I don't get what that is all
about.
From a community perspective, I can't see how we could benifit from bad press
like that, unless much of the free world started to adopt CDDL. What are the
chances of that happening, do you think?<gd&r>
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 3:55 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at Sun dot Com> wrote:
> From a community perspective, I can't see how we could benifit from bad press
> like that, unless much of the free world started to adopt CDDL. What are the
> chances of that happening, do you think?<gd&r>
If Sun would try to write a bit more about the CDDL on their web sites,
there is a good chance. If you look at the freshmeat statistics, you see
that the number of CDDL projects is slowly increasing and that the CDDL is
in the mid range of usage.
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:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 4:17 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 03:55 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If Sun would try to write a bit more about the CDDL on their web sites,
> there is a good chance. If you look at the freshmeat statistics, you see
> that the number of CDDL projects is slowly increasing and that the CDDL is
> in the mid range of usage.
Joerg,
I shouldn't have responded to the previous message, caught offguard after our
holiday here. We won't solve the Danese Cooper issue here, and Sun is looking
at it. No need to stir things up, Sun is looking into clearing things up.
Often easier said than done, trust me, and I can understand the communitie's
view.
I just happened to be reading newer mail, I'll read more old mail before
anymore comments, my apologees for my, err...I mean Danese's response.<LOL!>
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 11:42 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 16:17 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 03:55 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > If Sun would try to write a bit more about the CDDL on their web sites,
> > there is a good chance. If you look at the freshmeat statistics, you see
> > that the number of CDDL projects is slowly increasing and that the CDDL is
> > in the mid range of usage.
>
> Joerg,
>
> I shouldn't have responded to the previous message, caught offguard after our
> holiday here. We won't solve the Danese Cooper issue here, and Sun is looking
> at it. No need to stir things up, Sun is looking into clearing things up.
>
> Often easier said than done, trust me, and I can understand the communitie's
> view.
>
> I just happened to be reading newer mail, I'll read more old mail before
> anymore comments, my apologees for my, err...I mean Danese's response.<LOL!>
What amuses me most in this whole story is that many people (not only
from Debian devel side) jumping into this new forked cdrkit project:
* Joerg Jaspert, developer / project admin
* Eduard Bloch, developer
* Steve McIntyre, developer
* Peter Samuelson, contributor
* Luis Medinas, Gentoo cdrtools maintainer
* Christian Fromme, contributor
* Motoko Aoyama
You see only 40% of folks from Debian camp.
Ask yourself, what is the motivation for those folks?
Clearly, not just Joerg Schilling personality, as some DPL used to
claim.. It is certainly has a lot to do with GPL incompatibility claim
by FSF as I can see it...
Hope my observation might help to make right decisions.
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with
GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 3:06 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 16:17 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 September 2006 03:55 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > If Sun would try to write a bit more about the CDDL on their web sites,
> > > there is a good chance. If you look at the freshmeat statistics, you see
> > > that the number of CDDL projects is slowly increasing and that the CDDL is
> > > in the mid range of usage.
> >
> > Joerg,
> >
> > I shouldn't have responded to the previous message, caught offguard after our
> > holiday here. We won't solve the Danese Cooper issue here, and Sun is looking
> > at it. No need to stir things up, Sun is looking into clearing things up.
> >
> > Often easier said than done, trust me, and I can understand the communitie's
> > view.
> >
> > I just happened to be reading newer mail, I'll read more old mail before
> > anymore comments, my apologees for my, err...I mean Danese's response.<LOL!>
>
> What amuses me most in this whole story is that many people (not only
> from Debian devel side) jumping into this new forked cdrkit project:
>
> * Joerg Jaspert, developer / project admin
> * Eduard Bloch, developer
> * Steve McIntyre, developer
> * Peter Samuelson, contributor
> * Luis Medinas, Gentoo cdrtools maintainer
> * Christian Fromme, contributor
> * Motoko Aoyama
>
> You see only 40% of folks from Debian camp.
>
> Ask yourself, what is the motivation for those folks?
I don't know, but it cannot be what they claim.
Eduard Bloch is the main agressor and responsible for the dispute.
These people go the same wrong way as a former RedHat employee that
started the speudo "fork" called dvdrecord.
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:
1,695
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
The power of distortion? (was: Danese etc...)
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 8:10 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 16:17 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 03:55 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> If Sun would try to write a bit more about the CDDL on their web sites,
>>> there is a good chance. If you look at the freshmeat statistics, you see
>>> that the number of CDDL projects is slowly increasing and that the CDDL is
>>> in the mid range of usage.
>>
>> Joerg,
>>
>> I shouldn't have responded to the previous message, caught offguard after our
>> holiday here. We won't solve the Danese Cooper issue here, and Sun is looking
>> at it. No need to stir things up, Sun is looking into clearing things up.
>>
>> Often easier said than done, trust me, and I can understand the communitie's
>> view.
>>
>> I just happened to be reading newer mail, I'll read more old mail before
>> anymore comments, my apologees for my, err...I mean Danese's response.<LOL!>
>
> What amuses me most in this whole story is that many people (not only
> from Debian devel side) jumping into this new forked cdrkit project:
>
> * Joerg Jaspert, developer / project admin
> * Eduard Bloch, developer
> * Steve McIntyre, developer
> * Peter Samuelson, contributor
> * Luis Medinas, Gentoo cdrtools maintainer
> * Christian Fromme, contributor
> * Motoko Aoyama
>
> You see only 40% of folks from Debian camp.
>
> Ask yourself, what is the motivation for those folks?
>
> Clearly, not just Joerg Schilling personality, as some DPL used to
> claim.. It is certainly has a lot to do with GPL incompatibility claim
> by FSF as I can see it...
>
> Hope my observation might help to make right decisions.
>
> --
> Erast
>
Erast,
My culling of the noise v. signal of this whole thread, makes
me ponder the following: Your observation above (part of the
"signal" IMHO), plus Casper's (ditto), suggests the following:
Coders who are working (or considering working) in opposition to
CDDL-licensed software might be badly misinformed because it's safe to
assume they would never, in similar fashion, work in opposition to
Apache-licensed software.
Is that a fair synthesis?
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
OK, let's not go down the path of character
assassination
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 4:39 PM
in response to: yippi
|
|
This thread is now starting down the path of character assassination and
I *really* think that we don't want to head down that path. There be
dragons.
Can we now drop this particular direction on the thread?
alan.
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance)
Systems Technical Service Center
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OK, let's not go down the path of character
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 9:25 PM
in response to: alanh
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Indeed it is probably the better part of valor, especially when treading on treacherous ground--but really always--to #include "disclaimer.std" on posts--even if it is implied by community or context. The waste of network bit times is regrettable, but probably worth it.
E.g.,
"The views expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of any of my employers, past or present, or any other person, living or deceased."
...sort of thing.
But the best course is to stay away from thin ice altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 5:03 AM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
> wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
> verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
> this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
> to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
> of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
Simon has already posted on this forum regarding Danese's statements, and I didn't read anything in the Debian post which mentioned OpenSolaris, nor did I read anything about OpenSolaris on the Slashdot thread which it spawned. I don't see this as an attack on OpenSolaris by the Debian folks, and we need to be careful not to characterise it as one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 5:13 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison <Alan dot Burlison at sun dot com> wrote:
> > As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
> > wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
> > verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
> > this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
> > to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
> > of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
>
> Simon has already posted on this forum regarding Danese's statements, and I didn't read anything in the Debian post which mentioned OpenSolaris, nor did I read anything about OpenSolaris on the Slashdot thread which it spawned. I don't see this as an attack on OpenSolaris by the Debian folks, and we need to be careful not to characterise it as one.
I did already point to the related article:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77565
---->
Um die von zahlreichen grafischen CD- und DVD-Brennprogrammen unter Linux
verwendeten Programme der cdrtools gibt es Streitigkeiten, seit deren Autor Jörg Schilling,
der auch an einer eigenen OpenSolaris-Distribution mit dem Namen Schillix arbeitet, in
neueren Versionen des Pakets nach und nach einige Teile unter die Open-Source-Lizenz
CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) stellte. Laut einigen Entwicklern
sei dieser Lizenz-Mix nicht zulässig; sie erwägen daher eine eigene Variante der cdrtools zu
pflegen und haben einen Fork initiiert.
<----
Read it and understand why this is an attack on OpenSolaris that
is even published outside Debian.
Heise claims that the fact that I am working on OpenSolaris did
cause the conflict.
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:
511
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 5:58 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Burlison <Alan dot Burlison at sun dot com> wrote:
>
>>> As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
>>> wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
>>> verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
>>> this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
>>> to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
>>> of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
>>
>> Simon has already posted on this forum regarding Danese's statements, and I didn't read anything in the Debian post which mentioned OpenSolaris, nor did I read anything about OpenSolaris on the Slashdot thread which it spawned. I don't see this as an attack on OpenSolaris by the Debian folks, and we need to be careful not to characterise it as one.
>
> I did already point to the related article:
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77565
>
> ---->
> Um die von zahlreichen grafischen CD- und DVD-Brennprogrammen unter Linux
> verwendeten Programme der cdrtools gibt es Streitigkeiten, seit deren Autor Jörg Schilling,
> der auch an einer eigenen OpenSolaris-Distribution mit dem Namen Schillix arbeitet, in
> neueren Versionen des Pakets nach und nach einige Teile unter die Open-Source-Lizenz
> CDDL (Common Development and Distribution License) stellte. Laut einigen Entwicklern
> sei dieser Lizenz-Mix nicht zulässig; sie erwägen daher eine eigene Variante der cdrtools zu
> pflegen und haben einen Fork initiiert.
> <----
>
>
> Read it and understand why this is an attack on OpenSolaris that
> is even published outside Debian.
>
> Heise claims that the fact that I am working on OpenSolaris did
> cause the conflict.
No they don't. Casually mentioning that you are active in OpenSolaris may
create that association in the mind, but that's not equivalent to actually
stating e.g. "his work on OpenSolaris has lead to him changing the license
for parts of cdrtools". They don't state anything like that. What's read
between the lines is up to the reader ... and journalists are always
biased in one way or the other.
This is a political thing, there are two camps here:
1. Jörg, who (legitimally, IMHO) wants the question answered:
"How can I co-package free software components that come under
different opensource licenses ?"
2. Debian, who (also legitimally - but lazy) answers this question with:
"Simple: by (since you control that) using the strictest license
for everything, and that'd be the GPL".
In short, you're not ok with that answer because it evades the question
from your point of view as much as it answers it from the point of view of
the Debianistas ... you don't like that they don't help you achieve what
you want, and Debian just don't get it that the uttermost simple solution
(from their point of view) isn't appealing to you at all.
That's where the huge chasm is that prevents you from finding common
ground. But I don't much see what that has to do with OpenSolaris.
Mentioning that is firing smoke grenades.
I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
now; back to work :)
FrankH.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:35 AM
in response to: frankho
|
|
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
> now; back to work :)
Frank,
I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:39 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
>> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
>> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
>> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
>> now; back to work :)
>
>Frank,
>
>I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
>yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
>hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
>been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
you start distributing the binary.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:45 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.Com wrote:
> >I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
> >yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
> >hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
> >been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
>
> The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
>
> The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
> you start distributing the binary.
You may even distribute the driver unless you create a derived work from the
Solaris kernel and the driver.
As Solaris loads the drivers on demand and as it is most unlikely that this
driver will be needed in order to run the OpenSolaris kernel at all, it could
be called a separate "work".
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:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
License rathole: Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL
made incompatible with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 2:23 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
>As Solaris ... most unlikely that ... it could be...
>... from my understanding ...
>
IANAL, YANAL and most of the rest ANLs either; this thread
has devolved into simply conjecture and opinion, worth exactly
nothing. It truly *does not matter* what you or I think things
*should* be; the reality will only be decided if and when lawyers
and courts get involved (ugh!), and even then, the ramifications
of distributed jurisdictions, laws and governments (etc) will
guarantee that there will never be a single perfect answer to
this question.
The bottom line is (and always has been), if you or your business
depends on the interaction of multiple software licenses, then
you or your business needs to explicitly engage competent legal
council for advice. Period.
Can we please go back to discussing more productive topics?
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License rathole:
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 5:20 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher <John dot Plocher at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> Can we please go back to discussing more productive topics?
If you have time to do more productive work and are interested in doing so, you could
help to finally integrate star into opensolaris.
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:
976
From:
Винницкая область — область на западе Украины. (Vinnitsya, Ukraine)
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License
rathole:
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 6:13 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>John Plocher <John dot Plocher at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Can we please go back to discussing more productive topics?
>>
>>
>
>If you have time to do more productive work and are interested in doing so, you could
>help to finally integrate star into opensolaris.
>
>Jörg
>
>
>
Certainly very useful!
However SUNW, what about allowing Schillix, Belenix and marTux the
(closed) redistribution of the 4 tiny libs, on whom your so called
""Distro""-JDK __depends__ ?
You youself violate DLJ's terms requiring compatibility of a distro with
the DLJ-JDK.
You know, I hate linUX, but the Debian folks are right otherwise, with
criticizing your current licensing practice.
I didn't even get a single response on
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=13133&tstart=15
Konfuzius Altmann says: "Ignoring problems makes them worse, not better."
Martin
p.s. I don't mention the sparc /dev/fb console drivers I requested over
a month ago.
pp.s. I'm not expecting you to open source above things. I'm talking
about the binaries included in many public patches, available for free
via anonymous ftp-download from down to small wannabe Universities all
over the world. THEY can redistribute those things, Moinak or Joerg or I
cannot ???
Interesting ...
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License
rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 3:12 AM
in response to: bochnig
|
|
Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx dot com> wrote:
> Certainly very useful!
>
> However SUNW, what about allowing Schillix, Belenix and marTux the
> (closed) redistribution of the 4 tiny libs, on whom your so called
> ""Distro""-JDK __depends__ ?
> You youself violate DLJ's terms requiring compatibility of a distro with
> the DLJ-JDK.
This is indeed something that could be fixed by Sun easily.
My impression is that this is caused by selective perception at Suns side.
Sun people do not have this problem.
Maybe, it was the same reason, why I did not get an answer on the
question why something simple like fnmatch.c from libc is still not
available as source.
> You know, I hate linUX, but the Debian folks are right otherwise, with
> criticizing your current licensing practice.
???
GPL §2 only hits when a new work either contains GPL source or is derived
from GPLd work. Note that the term "work" applies on the _source_ as the
binary result from running the compiler is not the "work" of an author.
If you look at the postings in osol-discuss you will see that people who
claim otherwise most likely did read the GPL FAQ from the FSF instead of the
GPL.
> I didn't even get a single response on
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=13133&tstart=15
>
> Konfuzius Altmann says: "Ignoring problems makes them worse, not better."
This is why it is of course wrong to ignore the Debian caused problem as well
as it is wrong to ignore the libC 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:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
License rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 3:21 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Martin Bochnig <mb1x at gmx dot com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly very useful!
>>
>> However SUNW, what about allowing Schillix, Belenix and marTux the
>> (closed) redistribution of the 4 tiny libs, on whom your so called
>> ""Distro""-JDK __depends__ ?
>> You youself violate DLJ's terms requiring compatibility of a distro with
>> the DLJ-JDK.
>
> This is indeed something that could be fixed by Sun easily.
> My impression is that this is caused by selective perception at Suns side.
>
> Sun people do not have this problem.
>
> Maybe, it was the same reason, why I did not get an answer on the
> question why something simple like fnmatch.c from libc is still not
> available as source.
Please don't put down to malice or deliberate action what is more likely
lack of resources or working on higher priority things.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
64
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
License rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 7:53 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:21:01AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >This is indeed something that could be fixed by Sun easily.
> >My impression is that this is caused by selective perception at Suns side.
> >Sun people do not have this problem.
this, together with
> more likely lack of resources or working on higher priority things.
this
seems reasonable - I don't see any malice in joerg's suspicion, it merely states that sun probably other things
with higer priority - just as you said.
the solution is probably to find someone at sun who makes this "his (or her) problem", and thus gives is a priority
high enough to lead to a solution :-)
patrick mauritz
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
License rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 7:59 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling writes:
> Maybe, it was the same reason, why I did not get an answer on the
> question why something simple like fnmatch.c from libc is still not
> available as source.
It is (like all of the special libc i18n code) encumbered. This is
documented in the README file for libc, visible here:
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/lib/libc/
It's not a question of "simplicity," but rather of licensing issues.
In general, when there are licensing problems that actually prohibit
us from releasing something as open source, we often also cannot talk
about the details of those licenses and what specific issue causes the
problem. I hope you weren't asking for details of the legal issues.
Those details are just not public information.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <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
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License
rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 8:01 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling writes:
> > Maybe, it was the same reason, why I did not get an answer on the
> > question why something simple like fnmatch.c from libc is still not
> > available as source.
>
> It is (like all of the special libc i18n code) encumbered. This is
> documented in the README file for libc, visible here:
>
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/lib/libc/
>
> It's not a question of "simplicity," but rather of licensing issues.
Running nm on the .o file makes me asume that it simply calls i8n code
but is not itself encumbered. Could you check this please?
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:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
License rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 8:15 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling writes:
> Running nm on the .o file makes me asume that it simply calls i8n code
> but is not itself encumbered. Could you check this please?
I think that's flawed. There is no way to determine what licenses may
or may not apply to a given bit of source code by looking at the
object file produced.
Yes, I believe the (unforunately) right decision was made in this
case. Yes, I wish it were otherwise. Yes, I hope someone untainted
is working on an un-encumbered version.
But, no, asking the question again won't get a different answer.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <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:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 11:49 AM
in response to: carlsonj
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
The core problem appears to be that Joerg did not get a response at all.
With regard to this comment in an earlier post:
>Maybe, it was the same reason, why I did not get an answer on the
>question why something simple like fnmatch.c from libc is still not
>available as source.
a boilerplate response could have been made, of the form
"<Inert name(s)> [is |are] entwined with encumbered code, and certain agreements are in place that would be repudiated if Sun were to discuss any instant details in a public forum"
which could just as well be programmed into a hotkey and sent in seconds, no matter how busy a staffer might be.
If I read Joerg correctly, his problem is that he didn't get a response at all, until his watchdog timer popped [I don't know how long that was]
No response is a response--that often doesn't speak well, and volunteer engineers usually have the immense luxury--unlike employees--of "resigning" with absolute impunity.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 1:02 PM
in response to: jcc3
|
|
>a boilerplate response could have been made, of the form
>
>"<Inert name(s)> [is |are] entwined with encumbered code, and certain agreements are in place that
would be repudiated if Sun were to discuss any instant details in a public forum"
We're not allowed to name and shame.
So that's all we can say "we can't release it under the CDDL".
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 2:01 PM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
>
> We're not allowed to name and shame.
>
I meant just the name of an object, assuming a question had come in
of the form "What is the status of frizzlefraggle.c?" kind of thing.
Of course you could not reveal the names of any third party entities
in agreements with Sun.
But the CDDL response does do the job just as well and it's fewer bits :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 1:19 PM
in response to: carlsonj
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[b]As an aside:[/b]
>
> I think that's flawed. There is no way to determine
> what licenses may
> or may not apply to a given bit of source code by
> looking at the
> object file produced.
>
This may be true for Sun for Solaris, and true for other UNIX
vendors generally, but it is not universally so.
Another large vendor, in a very large OS, has since 1964 had
the standard of placing such information in human-readable
characters at the start of every major binary, thus:
/* Pseudo assembler */
Branch to CodeStart
Constant "<MODULE-ID> <COMPONENT ID> "
Constant "<PATCH ID/U"
Constant "<Copyright chain, Rights statement, etc.>
CodeStart:
Save machine state
Begin code
........
Now, I do stipulate that these binaries are not in ELF format,
so any ELF metadata, as such, will not otherwise be present.
But when forced to shoot a raw dump without the aid of analysis
tools, this makes modules jump out at you like Giddy Kong.
Apologies for the digression.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 1:48 PM
in response to: jcc3
|
|
James C. Cotillier writes:
> This may be true for Sun for Solaris, and true for other UNIX
> vendors generally, but it is not universally so.
>
> Another large vendor, in a very large OS, has since 1964 had
> the standard of placing such information in human-readable
> characters at the start of every major binary, thus:
Sure; I've seen such a thing done before. However, it doesn't work
with the objects in question and, even if it did, it turns out that we
can't put much more here than "sorry, but source for this module isn't
and can't be made available."
... which turns out to be exactly the same thing we've been saying all
along.
In other words, if you want the answer as to what the specific
restriction might be, I'm afraid we can't divulge that, and even if we
could, it likely would do you no amount of good. "Can't" is all we
can say.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <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:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 1:54 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, James Carlson wrote:
> In other words, if you want the answer as to what the specific
> restriction might be, I'm afraid we can't divulge that, and even if we
> could, it likely would do you no amount of good. "Can't" is all we
> can say.
One wonders at the stupidity of companies that insist on provisions
like this, especially in this increasingly open world in which we
live. Perhaps the originators of the code don't want to be embarresed
by admitting they don't want to open their code.
If the original writer of the code doesn't want their code released,
that's their right and that's OK, but it would sure be nice if they
would allow their identity and reasons to be known. After all, what
have they got to lose? Their code is still kept secret.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, 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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
i18n libc bits [was Re: Re: Real work needs to be done
Was: Re:]
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 2:04 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
Rich Teer writes:
> If the original writer of the code doesn't want their code released,
> that's their right and that's OK, but it would sure be nice if they
> would allow their identity and reasons to be known. After all, what
> have they got to lose? Their code is still kept secret.
Welcome to the world of contracts.
I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the answer, but just that there isn't
another one. No matter how urgently or nicely you ask. :-/
A productive place to take this conversation would be a proposal to
replace those bits with something that's functionally equivalent, but
not encumbered. I can't ... but perhaps there's someone interested
who can.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <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:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: i18n libc bits [was Re: Re: Real work needs to be
done Was: Re:]
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 2:21 PM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, James Carlson wrote:
> Welcome to the world of contracts.
>
> I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the answer, but just that there isn't
> another one. No matter how urgently or nicely you ask. :-/
Indeed. :-(
> A productive place to take this conversation would be a proposal to
> replace those bits with something that's functionally equivalent, but
Agreed.
> not encumbered. I can't ... but perhaps there's someone interested
> who can.
Why can't you make such a proposal?* You (and all other Sun engineers)
are just as much of our community as anyone else, so in principle there
should be no problem. Unless you're alluding to company politics, in
which case, I'll keep shtoom!
* Not meant to be read in an antagonistic manner!
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, 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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
937
From:
AU
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: i18n libc bits [was Re: Re: Real work needs to
be done Was: Re:]
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 2:56 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, James Carlson wrote:
>> Welcome to the world of contracts.
>> I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the answer, but just that there isn't
>> another one. No matter how urgently or nicely you ask. :-/
> Indeed. :-(
>> A productive place to take this conversation would be a proposal to
>> replace those bits with something that's functionally equivalent, but
> Agreed.
>> not encumbered. I can't ... but perhaps there's someone interested
>> who can.
> Why can't you make such a proposal?* You (and all other Sun engineers)
> are just as much of our community as anyone else, so in principle there
> should be no problem. Unless you're alluding to company politics, in
> which case, I'll keep shtoom!
> * Not meant to be read in an antagonistic manner!
Rich,
James did make such a proposal - just now, on the mailing list.
What he said was that *he* (and by implication somebody on Sun's
payroll) cannot actually do the engineering work required, due
to legal restrictions and suchlike.
cheers,
James
(who has too much on his plate already)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,992
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: i18n libc bits [was Re: Re: Real work needs to be
done Was: Re:]
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 3:08 PM
in response to: rich
|
|
Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, James Carlson wrote:
...
>> not encumbered. I can't ... but perhaps there's someone interested
>> who can.
>
> Why can't you make such a proposal?* You (and all other Sun engineers)
> are just as much of our community as anyone else, so in principle there
> should be no problem. Unless you're alluding to company politics, in
> which case, I'll keep shtoom!
>
I believe Jim means that he can't do the work. If you are sufficiently
exposed to the closed implementation, you obviously can't be a
participant in a clean-room reimplementation. Making a proposal isn't
prohibited, but proposals that you can't back up by contributing seem
kinda empty ;-)
Dave
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 7:16 PM
in response to: rich
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> If the original writer of the code doesn't want their
> code released,
> that's their right and that's OK, but it would sure
> be nice if they
> would allow their identity and reasons to be known.
> After all, what
> ave they got to lose? Their code is still kept
> secret.
>
Here I would have to weigh in on the side of what
James Carlson seems to be saying. Third parties can
ask for what ever terms they like. Sun can accept these
terms or reject them, but if Sun accepts this, WYSIWYG.
If I don't want my phone number listed, that's my prerogative.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 6:16 PM
in response to: carlsonj
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Sure; I've seen such a thing done before. However,
> it doesn't work
> with the objects in question and, even if it did, it
> turns out that we
> can't put much more here than "sorry, but source for
> this module isn't
> and can't be made available."
>
> ... which turns out to be exactly the same thing
> we've been saying all
> along.
>
> In other words, if you want the answer as to what the
> specific
> restriction might be, I'm afraid we can't divulge
> that, and even if we
> could, it likely would do you no amount of good.
> "Can't" is all we
> an say.
>
True, and I think we all understand this perfectly well. In the example
I cited, [b]NONE[/b] of the source code was publicly available,
but [b]EVERY[/b] binary licensee saw that if they knew how to read a dump.
That comment of mine was an academic aside that I probably should
have saved for a less emotionally-charged thread :-)
The bottom line is yes, say what you said, but just do it timely, when
competent people who are volunteering their valuable time are trying
to support us.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
352
From:
AU
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License
rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 1:10 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On 09/07/06 01:20, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Plocher <John dot Plocher at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>
>> Can we please go back to discussing more productive topics?
>
> If you have time to do more productive work and are interested in doing so, you could
> help to finally integrate star into opensolaris.
I'm not sure I understand how we got on to mention 'star' in this thread,
but let's just say we all knew it was inevitable :-)
Oddly enough, in a company of tens of thousands with many complex products and
which has gone through several rounds of staff cuts, idle cycles for individuals
in Sun are few and far between.
Gavin
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re: License
rathole:
Posted:
Sep 7, 2006 3:36 AM
in response to: gavinm
|
|
Gavin Maltby <Gavin dot Maltby at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand how we got on to mention 'star' in this thread,
> but let's just say we all knew it was inevitable :-)
There is a simple way to avoid this kind of hints:
Make sure that people from Sun do not tell me that _I_ am preventing
real work to be done as long as I am still waiting for a more then 2 year old
ARC case to be implemented.
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:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:47 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 20:39 +0200, Casper.***@Sun.Com wrote:
> >On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
> >> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
> >> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
> >> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
> >> now; back to work :)
> >
> >Frank,
> >
> >I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
> >yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
> >hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
> >been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
>
> The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
>
> The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
> you start distributing the binary.
So, what's the point of porting GPL driver if you can not eventually use
it other then in your garage? :-)
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:50 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
>On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 20:39 +0200, Casper.***@Sun.Com wrote:
>> >On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
>> >> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
>> >> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
>> >> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
>> >> now; back to work :)
>> >
>> >Frank,
>> >
>> >I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
>> >yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
>> >hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
>> >been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
>>
>> The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
>>
>> The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
>> you start distributing the binary.
>
>So, what's the point of porting GPL driver if you can not eventually use
>it other then in your garage? :-)
It's the question he asked. "Can I legally run it?".
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
129
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
GPL kernel modules in Solaris? Was CDDL furball.
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:19 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@sun.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 20:39 +0200, Casper.***@Sun.Com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
>>>>> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
>>>>> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
>>>>> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
>>>>> now; back to work :)
>>>> Frank,
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
>>>> yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
>>>> hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
>>>> been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
>>> The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
>>>
>>> The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
>>> you start distributing the binary.
>> So, what's the point of porting GPL driver if you can not eventually use
>> it other then in your garage? :-)
>
>
> It's the question he asked. "Can I legally run it?".
>
> Casper
Anyone remember the "Linux Driver Porting Kit" and the stink Don Becker
raised about this very question ?
What became of that argument?
John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL kernel modules in Solaris? Was CDDL furball.
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:30 PM
in response to: weekleyj
|
|
>Casper.***@sun.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 20:39 +0200, Casper.***@Sun.Com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
>>>>>> I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
>>>>>> kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
>>>>>> I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
>>>>>> now; back to work :)
>>>>> Frank,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
>>>>> yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
>>>>> hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
>>>>> been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
>>>> The answer is "yes" regardless of the version of the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> The GPL's provisions which don't allow mixing don't come into force until
>>>> you start distributing the binary.
>>> So, what's the point of porting GPL driver if you can not eventually use
>>> it other then in your garage? :-)
>>
>>
>> It's the question he asked. "Can I legally run it?".
>>
>> Casper
>
>
>Anyone remember the "Linux Driver Porting Kit" and the stink Don Becker
>raised about this very question ?
>What became of that argument?
Nothing; Sun decided not to pursue the matter.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
129
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL kernel modules in Solaris? Was CDDL furball.
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:30 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
>>
>> Anyone remember the "Linux Driver Porting Kit" and the stink Don Becker
>> raised about this very question ?
>> What became of that argument?
>
> Nothing; Sun decided not to pursue the matter.
>
> Casper
Seems like a pretty good answer, even today.
John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPL kernel modules in Solaris? Was CDDL furball.
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:35 PM
in response to: weekleyj
|
|
John Weekley <weekleyj at foobarlabs dot net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Anyone remember the "Linux Driver Porting Kit" and the stink Don Becker
> >> raised about this very question ?
> >> What became of that argument?
> >
> > Nothing; Sun decided not to pursue the matter.
> >
> > Casper
>
> Seems like a pretty good answer, even today.
For a company like Sun, you are right.
But as the kit from Sun was definitely legal, it may be something to be done
by others. The question would be what piece of code would be interesting
enough and does nto have a FreeBSD counterpart?
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:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:50 PM
in response to: erast
|
|
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 11:47 am, Erast Benson wrote:
> So, what's the point of porting GPL driver if you can not eventually use
> it other then in your garage? :-)
Exactly.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 11:40 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at Sun dot Com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:58 am, Frank dot Hofmann at Sun dot COM wrote:
> > I mean, the question is interesting. Can I, for example, port a Linux
> > kernel driver that is GPL to Solaris, and legally run it ?
> > I hope to eventually get a positive answer to that ... but not here and
> > now; back to work :)
>
> Frank,
>
> I think the answer today is no. But when GPLv3 is out, the answer should be
> yes. This is the entire problem with linking kernel code (although that
> hasn't been upheld in a court of law, AFAIK) with other non-GPL seems to have
> been the issue, since the Linux 2.4.13 kernel.
Alan, from my understanding you may do this because porting a GPLd driver to
Solaris does neither:
- cause the Solaris kernel project to include GPLd code as long as the
driver is not essential for running the Solaris kernel.
Note that the Solaris kernnel is not a monolithic piece of code and
that nobody did e.g. claimed a problem for running GPLd code
on DOS or on the ATARI where no MMU causes the code to run in different
contexts.
nor:
- make the Solaris kernel a "derived work" from the GPLd driver. It is
rather the other way.
If the GPLd driver may be called a separate project/work, I would recommend to
GPL all code that is needed for the port and then just use the driver on
OpenSolaris.
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:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 6, 2006 12:49 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 11:40 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan, from my understanding you may do this because porting a GPLd driver
> to Solaris does neither:
>
> - cause the Solaris kernel project to include GPLd code as long as the
> driver is not essential for running the Solaris kernel.
>
> Note that the Solaris kernnel is not a monolithic piece of code and
> that nobody did e.g. claimed a problem for running GPLd code
> on DOS or on the ATARI where no MMU causes the code to run in different
> contexts.
>
> nor:
>
> - make the Solaris kernel a "derived work" from the GPLd driver. It is
> rather the other way.
>
> If the GPLd driver may be called a separate project/work, I would recommend
> to GPL all code that is needed for the port and then just use the driver on
> OpenSolaris.
If you have a CDDL device driver that is written, that can't be taken to
Linux, AFAIK. GPL driver coming back to Solaris can't do as it is being used
by the kernel. I'm not sure I understand what you're pointing out. Yes, we
can have code that co-exists from userland, but I'm looking at the big
picture.
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun Microsystems
Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 7:27 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:03:57AM -0700, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
> > wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
> > verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
> > this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
> > to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
> > of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
>
> Simon has already posted on this forum regarding Danese's statements, and I didn't read anything in the Debian post which mentioned OpenSolaris, nor did I read anything about OpenSolaris on the Slashdot thread which it spawned. I don't see this as an attack on OpenSolaris by the Debian folks, and we need to be careful not to characterise it as one.
+1
can we all go back to work now?
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Danese Cooper claims CDDL made incompatible
with GPL on purpose
Posted:
Sep 5, 2006 7:33 AM
in response to: stevel
|
|
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:03:57AM -0700, Alan Burlison wrote:
>> > As long as Danese may be quotetd by people like Debian to "prove" their
>> > wrong claims on the OpenSolaris project and there is no way to even
>> > verify that Danese is the only one who worked/works for Sun and spreads
>> > this strange claim. Debian & friends will convince a lot of people
>> > to stay away from OpenSolaris unless there is help against this kind
>> > of agression against the OpenSolaris project.
>>
>> Simon has already posted on this forum regarding Danese's statements, and
>> I didn't read anything in the Debian post which mentioned OpenSolaris, nor
>> did I read anything about OpenSolaris on the Slashdot thread which it
>> spawned. I don't see this as an attack on OpenSolaris by the Debian
>> folks, and we need to be careful not to characterise it as one.
>
> +1
> can we all go back to work now?
>
I never stopped ... I was up until 4AM getting a server patched up to date.
Support contracts are great :-)
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
