|
Replies:
46
-
Last Post:
Feb 13, 2007 8:50 PM
by: gman
|
|
|
Posts:
803
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 1:11 PM
|
|
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
Casper ***, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
Background: Over the past week or so a heated and passionate debate
has taken place on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list [1] relating
to the possibility of dual-licensing OpenSolaris, and in particular
with GPLv3 as the 2nd license, in addition to CDDL, under which
OpenSolaris is currently licensed. The CAB/OGB (henceforth referred
to as simply the OGB) has observed this discussion carefully and
individual OGB members have been active participants.
Now that this discussion is winding down, the OGB, as the elected
representatives of the OpenSolaris project, will render an OGB
statement of position and provide guidance to the community to bring
closure to this discussion and to determine the communities near term
future licensing direction.
Discussion summaries (the pros and the cons):
The Pro dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
will:
- increase developer mindshare
- attract active developers currently working on other FOSS projects
- promote code exchange across FOSS boundries
- end the constant anti-CDDL campaign waged by GPL* license
proponents
The Anti dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
will:
- increase licensing complexity and futher complicate this already
legally complex licensing landscape
- lead to endless continued debates related to various "what if" code
inclusion/exclusion scenarios
- allow a one-way code fork by acquiring the OpenSolaris body of
code, manipulating, removing or modifying the (eventual, but
currently unknown) GPLv3 license terms in a way that prevents or
impedes the changes being propagated back to OpenSolaris.
- *not* entice or attract GPL* proponent FOSS developers, who want to
ensure that other Operating Systems (they actively work on) flourish,
to OpenSolaris.
---------------
The OGB, having heard arguments from both sides, concludes:
o Discussing GPLv3 is pre-mature as the license does not exist at
this time.
o That there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing OpenSolaris
with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license - aside
from possible short term good press for the project.
o There are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but
not limited to, license complexity, confusion and the possibility of
long term bad press from any exception language that such a license
would inevitably require.
o GPL* licensing OpenSolaris would be yielding to a small vocal
minority of FOSS developers who use the lack of GPL licensing, purely
as a means of fostering FUD towards OpenSolaris and who will, in all
likelyhood, find some other workable mechanism to continue to foster
FUD towards the project.
o There are higher priority action items to be completed in order to
build developer mindshare and that this opinion is held by a large
number of current contributors and acts as a barrier to other
potential contributors.
-------------
The OGB having carefully weighed the available options concludes and
decrees that:
o any option related to GPLv3 dual licensing be re-assessed no sooner
than 6 months after the GPLv3 has been published and approved.
o Further discussions related to any form of dual licensing be
postponed until after the GPLv3 has been published and approved and
should take place on the OGB discussion forum only.
o Further discussion on GPL* is merely a diversion and distraction
that should be discouraged, so as to allow the community to
concentrate on the higher priority action items - especially those
that will improve developer mindshare.
-------------------
[1] begin here - it will take approximately 5 hours to read all the
related threads:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023879.html
MOTION To adopt the CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6 by
Al Hopper seconded by Rich Teer. Motion carried unanimously (In
favor: Rich Teer, Casper ***, Row Fielding, Al Hopper. Absent Simon
Phipps).
----------
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
James C. McPher...
James.McPherson@Sun....
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 1:57 PM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
Al Hopper wrote:
> CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
>
> Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
>
> Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
> Casper ***, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
>
...
+1e6 at least.
Thankyou.
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 2:12 PM
in response to: James C. McPher...
|
|
Hey,
James C. McPherson wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
>> CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
>>
>> Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
>>
>> Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
>> Casper ***, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
>>
> ...
>
>
> +1e6 at least.
So yeah, this is cool to see, and quite a nice touch.
However, it's interesting in some other ways. I note this is 'version 0.6' -
which suggest that you're collaborating in forums outside
cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org or the genunix wiki, and obviously the conference calls.
This doesn't really irritate me too much given the sensitive nature of this
document, but it's the first evidence that the OGB is using private
communication, and I've often wondered (though not too surprised) about whether
this was happening wrt to the governance drafts.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 2:51 PM
in response to: gman
|
|
>So yeah, this is cool to see, and quite a nice touch.
>
>However, it's interesting in some other ways. I note this is 'version 0.6' -
>which suggest that you're collaborating in forums outside
>cab-discuss at opensolaris dot org or the genunix wiki, and obviously the conference calls.
When the CAB was established we were all issued with surpluss
``Clipper Chip'' phones and communication gear :-)
There's always been a private list which can reach all of us and,
somehow, we know each others email addresses.
Also, for con-calls it's kinda nice to be able to send out call
numbers in private.
>This doesn't really irritate me too much given the sensitive nature of this
>document, but it's the first evidence that the OGB is using private
>communication, and I've often wondered (though not too surprised) about whether
>this was happening wrt to the governance drafts.
Some of those meetings allowed anyone to call in and the drafts were
all exchanged in the open to more people then just the CAB; e.g., Ben
Rockwood was present for many of those.
I think, though, that in this case there was only a .5 and a .6; one
send just before and the other during our meeting just now.
Email side-channels during meetings are important.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 9:48 PM
in response to: alhopper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Thank you *so much* for putting this statement forth. Our community needed clarity and closure.
"+1e6 at least" to echo someone else's comment.
-Shawn
Contributor # OS0004
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 10, 2007 7:18 AM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
Hello ...
I support the OGB issuing position papers on behalf of the OpenSolaris
community, and I think many people in the community welcome the board's
view. I certainly respect the OGB and the individual members as well.
However, I disagree with some elements in this OGB Position Paper.
In parts, this document attempts to thwart conversation on OpenSolaris,
and I don't support that strategy under any circumstance -- especially
since so many of us have worked so hard to have /open/ conversations.
Also, the OpenSolaris Community is nascent, and I believe we should
/encourage/ conversation, not /discourage/ it -- no matter what the
issue is as long as the conversation is respectful.
Al Hopper wrote:
> CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
>
> Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
>
> Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
> Casper ***, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer
>
>
> Background: Over the past week or so a heated and passionate debate
> has taken place on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list [1] relating
> to the possibility of dual-licensing OpenSolaris, and in particular
> with GPLv3 as the 2nd license, in addition to CDDL, under which
> OpenSolaris is currently licensed. The CAB/OGB (henceforth referred
> to as simply the OGB) has observed this discussion carefully and
> individual OGB members have been active participants.
I had hoped the OGB would actually lead the conversation, not just
observe it. True, individual board members have participated and offered
opinions of substance, and that's great. However, it's sometimes unclear
when a board member is speaking for himself or for the board. That may
just be my confusion, though. But an OGB-led conversation would have
been a strong statement to Sun from the OpenSolaris community about this
issue. A few weeks ago, well before the current iteration of v3
discussions, I suggested that the OGB lead such a conversation to
address all the speculation in the media and offer the perspective of
the OpenSolaris community to Sun. The fact that Sun (as represented by
Harpster starting the thread) subsequently asked the OpenSolaris
community for our views is excellent.
> Now that this discussion is winding down, the OGB, as the elected
> representatives of the OpenSolaris project, will render an OGB
> statement of position and provide guidance to the community to bring
> closure to this discussion and to determine the communities near term
> future licensing direction.
I'm not at all sure this issue needs closure. It's just a discussion,
and it was started to gain an understanding of issues and the
perspective of the OpenSolaris community. Also, statements from Sun in
the press resulting from the company's analyst conference last week
demonstrate quite clearly that this issue is far from winding down. The
venue may have shifted, though. Our discussions here on this list have
been quoted in the press, analysts are blogging about it, and both are
asking Sun executives in formal settings. I think we are now part of a
much larger discussion, and we ought to engage at every opportunity.
> Discussion summaries (the pros and the cons):
>
> The Pro dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
> will:
>
>
> - increase developer mindshare
>
> - attract active developers currently working on other FOSS projects
>
> - promote code exchange across FOSS boundries
>
> - end the constant anti-CDDL campaign waged by GPL* license
> proponents
It's true that CDDL has been attacked by some vocal opponents, and many
of them have also been proponents of GPL. However, I'd suggest that this
point be revised because it casts /all/ GPL proponents as anti-CDDL, and
I don't believe that's true. In fact, most of the quotes I've seen
attacking CDDL come from commentators in the press and Sun competitors.
Also, I don't think the elected representatives of the OpenSolaris
community should issue documents that accuse others of an "anti-CDDL
campaign". I don't believe that's appropriate. Individual statements by
opponents of CDDL can easily be pointed to, but a campaign is far more
difficult to assert and unfair to those who support GPL but who have
/not/ attacked CDDL.
> The Anti dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
> will:
>
> - increase licensing complexity and futher complicate this already
> legally complex licensing landscape
>
> - lead to endless continued debates related to various "what if" code
> inclusion/exclusion scenarios
>
> - allow a one-way code fork by acquiring the OpenSolaris body of
> code, manipulating, removing or modifying the (eventual, but
> currently unknown) GPLv3 license terms in a way that prevents or
> impedes the changes being propagated back to OpenSolaris.
>
> - *not* entice or attract GPL* proponent FOSS developers, who want to
> ensure that other Operating Systems (they actively work on) flourish,
> to OpenSolaris.
>
> ---------------
>
> The OGB, having heard arguments from both sides, concludes:
I think these conclusions are pre-mature. I'm not at all convinced we
have explored all the issues at this point.
> o Discussing GPLv3 is pre-mature as the license does not exist at
> this time.
True, v3 isn't out yet, but it's never too early to discuss issues like
this. Also, if we don't discuss our feelings fully, the issue will
rapidly get away from us (and when I say "us" I mean the OpenSolaris
community, not Sun the company). I see Sun's CEO quoted in the press
this week as a result of the company's analyst conference and I see
responses from the FSF. Do you really think discussing this is still
pre-mature? Sun has asked the OpenSolaris community to be part of the
discussion, and our response is to issue a decree to stop talking about it?
> o That there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing OpenSolaris
> with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license - aside
> from possible short term good press for the project.
>
>
>
>> o There are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but
> not limited to, license complexity, confusion and the possibility of
> long term bad press from any exception language that such a license
> would inevitably require.
>
> o GPL* licensing OpenSolaris would be yielding to a small vocal
> minority of FOSS developers who use the lack of GPL licensing, purely
> as a means of fostering FUD towards OpenSolaris and who will, in all
> likelyhood, find some other workable mechanism to continue to foster
> FUD towards the project.
I would suggest that the term "FUD" be removed and this entire point
above be revised. It's pejorative to the GPL community. We should not be
issuing formal statements that disparage any community. I've said this
on multiple occasions for three years now: we /as a community/ should
leave the competitive issues to the companies (Sun, Red Hat, IBM, MS,
whoever).
> o There are higher priority action items to be completed in order to
> build developer mindshare and that this opinion is held by a large
> number of current contributors and acts as a barrier to other
> potential contributors.
Can you please define "contributors" here in this context?
> -------------
>
> The OGB having carefully weighed the available options concludes and
> decrees that:
Was the choice of the word "decree" intentional?
> o any option related to GPLv3 dual licensing be re-assessed no sooner
> than 6 months after the GPLv3 has been published and approved.
Why 6 months? How was that time limit determined? I'm not saying it's
too long or too short, but I'd like to know the thinking that went into
making this assertion.
> o Further discussions related to any form of dual licensing be
> postponed until after the GPLv3 has been published and approved and
> should take place on the OGB discussion forum only.
I agree that discussions involving a /formal proposal/ need to occur
/after/ v3 is published -- that's obvious -- but general discussions
about licensing and even v3 possibilities can occur at any time and they
do not need to be restricted to the OGB list. In fact, since there are
only 91 people on cab-discuss and more than 800 on opensolaris-discuss,
I'd argue that the conversation belongs on opensolaris-discuss since
that's where the largest number of people are. Now, if the OGB started a
conversation on cab-discuss on the v3 issue, that's fine. But I don't
think it's the OGB's role to determine where a conversation can or can
not take place. The conversation is already taking place /outside/ our
lists, so restricting the conversation on our own lists doesn't make
sense. What happens if OpenSolaris community member decided to take the
conversation elsewhere? We all have blogs and we all can comment on
blogs. How can the OGB control that conversation?
> o Further discussion on GPL* is merely a diversion and distraction
> that should be discouraged, so as to allow the community to
> concentrate on the higher priority action items - especially those
> that will improve developer mindshare.
That's the OGB's opinion (that this is all a distraction), and it's
certainly a valid one. Many agree, too. I don't remember voting, though,
and I certainly don't agree with this decision. I would suggest that my
view is just as valid as the OGB's since both are pre-mature since the
conversation has not ended.
Regarding developer mind share: there are many ways to increase
developer mind share and engagement. Licensing is one. Finishing the
infrastructure build out for open development is another (and most
people currently involved agree that this is most important at this
point and I agree). Opening more code. Building more tools. Improving
website functionality. Marketing and publicity always helps. Education
programs that are gaining traction in China and India. User groups
continuing to form and meet. Etc. As a community, we need to engage at
multiple levels, so I fail to see the v3 conversation as a distraction.
Regarding the statement: "... that should be discourage." How does the
OGB intend to enforce this? According to the often-cited Wikipedia, "A
decree is an order made by a head of state or government and having the
force of law." So, if the OGB is issuing a decree here, what's the
enforcement mechanism? And what happens if it's ignored?
> -------------------
>
> [1] begin here - it will take approximately 5 hours to read all the
> related threads:
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023879.html
Regarding the related threads: the conversation has generated more than
a dozen threads and is now continuing right along in other venues (blogs
and the media). I expect that to not only continue but to increase when
v3 becomes available.
> MOTION To adopt the CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6 by
> Al Hopper seconded by Rich Teer. Motion carried unanimously (In
> favor: Rich Teer, Casper ***, Row Fielding, Al Hopper. Absent Simon
> Phipps).
> ----------
>
> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
> Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
> OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
> OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
Jim G.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
162
From:
Sunnyvale, California
Registered:
4/29/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 10, 2007 5:49 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> I had hoped the OGB would actually lead the conversation, not just
> observe it. True, individual board members have participated [...].
> But an OGB-led conversation would have
> been a strong statement to Sun from the OpenSolaris community about this
Arguably the problem was precisely that there was no opportunity for
this to be an OGB-led discussion because the question went straight to
the email list without going to the OGB first.
If, instead, the question had gone to the OGB first then presumably
there would not have been surprise about the OGB publishing an opinion.
> True, v3 isn't out yet, but it's never too early to discuss issues like
> this. Also, if we don't discuss our feelings fully, the issue will
> rapidly get away from us (and when I say "us" I mean the OpenSolaris
> community, not Sun the company). I see Sun's CEO quoted in the press
There certainly seem to have been people (including in Sun's management,
not necessarily on this list) for whom the desired answer from here
would have been "yes, GPLv3 is great". The fact that this was not the
answer that emerged does not necessarily make the OGB's summary wrong
though.
> this week as a result of the company's analyst conference and I see
> responses from the FSF. Do you really think discussing this is still
> pre-mature? Sun has asked the OpenSolaris community to be part of the
> discussion, and our response is to issue a decree to stop talking about it?
The only point in talking to the FSF before the license is final is
would be in order to negotiate along the lines of "we'll use your
license, but only if you make changes X, Y, and Z before it's final".
It's not clear this is on offer, and even if it is, I would expect this
to be discussed in an OGB meeting first, at least to the extent of "how
best to raise this question and what questions to ask?"
Hugh.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Adelaide, South Australia
Registered:
9/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 10, 2007 6:02 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
Jim,
> It's true that CDDL has been attacked by some vocal opponents, and many
> of them have also been proponents of GPL. However, I'd suggest that this
> point be revised because it casts /all/ GPL proponents as anti-CDDL, and
> I don't believe that's true.
I cannot take the CDDL parts of the OpenSolaris code and unilaterally
license it with the GPLv2. I am going to assume that the GPLv3 will not
suddenly become "compatible" with the CDDL material in order to do this
as well.
Those who advocate that code be placed under the GPLv2, and possibly the
GPLv3, advocate a license that is not compatible with many, many other
licenses without special permission from the original copyright holder's
or set of holder's permission. If this was not the case, this whole
discussion would be MOOT - the GPL camp could take the CDDL code and
dual license it or single license it WITHOUT having to ask the original
copyright holder's permission (and the easiest copyright holder to ask
is Sun in this case).
ALL GPL proponents advocate a license which _is not compatible_ with the
CDDL. I might concede that they may not be anti-CDDL but the license
they seek to impose _is_ not compatible with the GPL because of:
a) Technical, legal reasons; but
b) More importantly, philosophical reasons
The Free Software Foundation uses its flagship license(s), the GPLvX, to
promote its philosophy.
Therein lies the philosophical difference.
CDDL says:
"If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the changes to MY
files that YOU have changed BUT you needn't license YOUR files under MY
license (even if YOUR files require a significant proportion, if not
all, of MY files to compile or work as specified)"
GPL says:
"If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the changes to MY
distribution that YOU have changed and you MUST license YOUR code under
MY license if YOUR code requires a significant proportion of MY code to
compile or work as specified".
It may be unfair to say that the GPL prononents are anti-CDDL however
their license is certainly not comptabile and the owner of that license,
whether you want that to be the Free Software Foundation or Stallman,
have -- to their credit -- portrayed a strong, consistent view of
licensing that IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE CDDL.
DSL
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 1:03 AM
in response to: lloy0076
|
|
--- David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam dot com dot au> wrote:
> GPL says:
>
> "If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the changes
> to MY
> distribution that YOU have changed and you MUST license YOUR code
> under
> MY license if YOUR code requires a significant proportion of MY
> code to
> compile or work as specified".
Exactly, and here's why:
I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100% of
the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as you
allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they know
that those who will use their product will also have to share the
source code.
For those who complain about the freedom restriction, I suppose they
should really just release everything in the public domain. Oh wait,
even that does not protect you against lawsuits and such.
The CDDL clause on forcing an entity to stop using CDDL software in
case the company sues for patent infringement is, in my opinion, a
gross poison pill, onerous to the small company whose patents are
being infringed upon. You and I may not agree that patents on
software should even exist, but the reality is that they do, and are
an important asset in today's world. Forcing a company not to use the
CDDL in the event such company wants to sue to protect its right is,
in my humble opinion, worse of an infringement on freedom than any of
the GPL2's terms.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Geir Magnusson ...
geirm@apache.org
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 9:14 AM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> --- David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam dot com dot au> wrote:
>
>> GPL says:
>>
>> "If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the changes
>> to MY
>> distribution that YOU have changed and you MUST license YOUR code
>> under
>> MY license if YOUR code requires a significant proportion of MY
>> code to
>> compile or work as specified".
>
> Exactly, and here's why:
>
> I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100% of
> the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as you
> allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
>
> It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they know
> that those who will use their product will also have to share the
> source code.
Do you have any data to support that statement? Projects seem to
thrive under all kinds of licenses.
geir
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 11:17 AM
in response to: Geir Magnusson ...
|
|
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm at apache dot org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> >
> > --- David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam dot com dot au> wrote:
> >
> >> GPL says:
> >>
> >> "If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the
> changes
> >> to MY
> >> distribution that YOU have changed and you MUST license YOUR
> code
> >> under
> >> MY license if YOUR code requires a significant proportion of MY
> >> code to
> >> compile or work as specified".
> >
> > Exactly, and here's why:
> >
> > I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100%
> of
> > the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as
> you
> > allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
> >
> > It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they
> know
> > that those who will use their product will also have to share the
> > source code.
>
> Do you have any data to support that statement? Projects seem to
> thrive under all kinds of licenses.
Even proprietary ones.
In FLOSS, perception is reality, Mr. Harmony. Say Hi to Jim Driscoll.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Geir Magnusson ...
geirm@apache.org
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 11:39 AM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
On Feb 11, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm at apache dot org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --- David Lloyd <lloy0076 at adam dot com dot au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> GPL says:
>>>>
>>>> "If you want to redistribute MY code you must give me the
>> changes
>>>> to MY
>>>> distribution that YOU have changed and you MUST license YOUR
>> code
>>>> under
>>>> MY license if YOUR code requires a significant proportion of MY
>>>> code to
>>>> compile or work as specified".
>>>
>>> Exactly, and here's why:
>>>
>>> I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100%
>> of
>>> the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as
>> you
>>> allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
>>>
>>> It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they
>> know
>>> that those who will use their product will also have to share the
>>> source code.
>>
>> Do you have any data to support that statement? Projects seem to
>> thrive under all kinds of licenses.
>
> Even proprietary ones.
>
> In FLOSS, perception is reality, Mr. Harmony. Say Hi to Jim Driscoll.
Borrowing from Freud, sometimes a JDK project is just a JDK project.
(And re Jim, I will)
So, is that a no? :)
geir
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 11:08 AM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100% of
> the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as you
> allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
Agreed. The CDDL also allows this. The distinction is that the CDDL
doesn't force you to relicense your code should you want to use my code.
You write chris.c and it's GPLed, and I write rich.c and it's CDDLed.
rich.c has some nifty functions that you want to use. The CDDL says
"of course you can use the code in this file, with the provison that
it and any changes you make to it are made available under the CDDL".
The GPL says that you may not distribute your new program, unless you
convince me to change the licence of my code to GPL.
> It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they know
> that those who will use their product will also have to share the
> source code.
Agreed. Again, the CDDL enforces this. If you make changes to rich.c,
the CDDL, like the GPL, requires that you make the source for those
changes available to everyone. This would also be true if chris.c was
not open source: you're not obliged to release the source to chris.c,
but you DO have to make available the changes you make to rich.c.
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 11:38 AM
in response to: rich
|
|
--- Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> > I do 50% of the work, you do 50% of the work, we both enjoy 100%
> of
> > the product. I am not restricting your use of my code as long as
> you
> > allow me to use the code you write alongside it.
>
> Agreed. The CDDL also allows this. The distinction is that the
> CDDL
> doesn't force you to relicense your code should you want to use my
> code.
>
> You write chris.c and it's GPLed, and I write rich.c and it's
> CDDLed.
> rich.c has some nifty functions that you want to use. The CDDL
> says
> "of course you can use the code in this file, with the provison
> that
> it and any changes you make to it are made available under the
> CDDL".
>
> The GPL says that you may not distribute your new program, unless
> you
> convince me to change the licence of my code to GPL.
>
> > It's fair. People are much more likely to contribute when they
> know
> > that those who will use their product will also have to share the
> > source code.
>
> Agreed. Again, the CDDL enforces this. If you make changes to
> rich.c,
> the CDDL, like the GPL, requires that you make the source for those
> changes available to everyone. This would also be true if chris.c
> was
> not open source: you're not obliged to release the source to
> chris.c,
> but you DO have to make available the changes you make to rich.c.
Rich, I am assuming you're a smart guy.
What am I supposed to do with 8 files out of 13 that it takes to
build a program and run it?
I take rich.c and add chris.c, and I also add commonheader.h, but I
don't make commonheader.h CDDL, but ChrisLicense (which in your case
would require large monthly payments to me) and chris.c is a simple
wrapper for commonheader.h. This means you could not use chris.c
(unless you wanted to make large monthly paymnts to me) even though
chris.c was CDDL.
To me, this is why file-base permissions does not work, and the GPL
specifically says the entire project must be GPL.
I could use your file rich.c and chris.c (I own the copyright to
commonheader.h) in an app called "Chris and Rich App 1.0", but you
could not.
This is the weakness of the CDDL that the Sun Contributor Agreement
remedies.
You may think I'm all FUD, and I'm just being trollish for my
personal perverse pleasure.
I'd like to tell you where I come from: I may be wrong, but this is
how I perceive the landscape. I will make decisions based on how I
perceive the landscape. For me, my perception is my reality.
I suppose going beyond that would take more laywers than I could
possibly afford, so I'll not have that option in the foreseeable
future. I am fairly certain that this is the case with most people
out there, including hackers and coders in the Open Source world.
You know what's funny? We're all very smart people. What do you think
people out there not in this industry think of all these license
issues? They gave up a long time ago and just use whatever software
they can get their hands on. You know why? It's too freaking
complicated.
Things have to get simpler before they'll get better.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,091
From:
CA
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 12:40 PM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> Rich, I am assuming you're a smart guy.
Some might say you assume too much--but not I. :-)
> What am I supposed to do with 8 files out of 13 that it takes to
> build a program and run it?
>
> I take rich.c and add chris.c, and I also add commonheader.h, but I
> don't make commonheader.h CDDL, but ChrisLicense (which in your case
> would require large monthly payments to me) and chris.c is a simple
> wrapper for commonheader.h. This means you could not use chris.c
> (unless you wanted to make large monthly paymnts to me) even though
> chris.c was CDDL.
Eh? That sounds kinda convoluted to me. The example I was giving
assumed that rich.c was a standalone set of routines--a library if
you will--that has no dependancy on anything else (apart from its
own header file, perhaps). I was further postulating that it was
you who wanted to use rich.c, not vice-versa.
However, in the secnario you describe, I'd obviously not be able to
use chris.c (unless I could reverse engineer commonheader.h), unless
I wanted to fork out large sums of cash. Which I don't. :-)
> To me, this is why file-base permissions does not work, and the GPL
> specifically says the entire project must be GPL.
>
> I could use your file rich.c and chris.c (I own the copyright to
> commonheader.h) in an app called "Chris and Rich App 1.0", but you
> could not.
True; but doing so goes against the spirit of open software. But
again I think this example is a little contrived. I write rich.c
to scratch some itch I have, and release it under the CDDL. You're
writing an app and decide that some of the stuff in rich.c would be
useful to you. Your source, chris.c, can use rich.c however it likes,
regardless of chris.c's license (provided that chris.c's licesne
doesn't prohibit such a combination). The only gotcha is that if you
modify rich.c you have to make the source to those changes avaialable.
Granted, because of commonheader.h's onerous license I can't use
chris.c for my stuff. But that's not because of the CDDL.
> You may think I'm all FUD, and I'm just being trollish for my
> personal perverse pleasure.
Nope.
> they can get their hands on. You know why? It's too freaking
> complicated.
>
> Things have to get simpler before they'll get better.
Agreed; Shakespear had it right: first, shoot all the lawyers. :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 9:15 PM
in response to: rich
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Agreed; Shakespear had it right: first, shoot all the
> lawyers. :-)
I know you're being silly Rich, so this isn't directed at you :)
I and many others are thankful for the great deal of time and effort that SUN's legal counsel has spent on ensuring that the OpenSolaris project could even happen! Not all of those educated in the ways of law are bad. I know we all want the red tape to go away, but as long as it is there, legal counsel is important.
> --
> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 1:18 PM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
The fundamental problem with the GPL is the same thing you seem to
regard as a virtue, namely that to modify or link with and redistribute
GPL material, all one's own material involved must be made available
under the same terms.
It's a lever to force everyone to play by the same particular interpretation
of openness. Yes, in one sense that's fair, because it's the same interpretation
applied to everyone. But in another, it's not, because it's one bunch trying to
force their particular interpretation on everyone else as an unavoidable condition
for collaboration with them, and ultimately promote it as the preferred form for
all collaboration. I have a _very_ hard time trusting anyone that's so very sure
they're Right (see "Leaping To The Stars" for some good discussion about the problems
that Knowing You're Right can cause). Note also that doesn't preclude believing in
absolutes, it just precludes trying to coerce others to share those beliefs.
BSD is the exact opposite, compatibile with anything). The real problem (IMO) with
BSD is not just that someone could make something proprietary out of it, nor that
they could make a fork, but the combination: that proprietary forks (i.e. lock-in
mechanisms) cannot be prevented. However, the original code remains open, and
someone else can always come along and make something better than the proprietary
fork (but still open) out of it.
CDDL attempts some sort of middle ground, to balance offering something of value with
maintaining some defensive measures and avoiding naivete. I don't claim that it's the
best of its kind, or couldn't be improved, but to my way of thinking, it has advantages
the others lack, or at least shows an effort to _balance_ a variety of concerns.
To concede to the GPL is ultimately to say that the participation of the GPL community is
so valuable that one is willing to overlook their viral and coercive license and the philosophy
under which it was created. Perhaps that's a valid conclusion, but I tend to think that
coercion should be opposed _no_matter_what_ the apparent gains of giving in might be,
because coercion never stops. For instance, relating to matters that may be new to
GPLv3, I agree completely that DRM is counterproductive and ultimately doomed to fail,
while hindering both developer and customer in the mean time, stomping all over
"fair use", and so on. But I think it's better to let folks find that out for themselves
than coerce them to agree with me as a condition for my cooperation on other
matters. Look at Jobs' remarks that the music industry should drop DRM for digital audio
distribution. Look at EMI considering it. Look at the fundamental issue that after all
the measures and countermeasures have fought to a standstill, divided the market, and
created all sorts of interoperability problems, a digital nth generation copy (unlike analog)
is still exactly as good as the master, and the _real_ answer is to take advantage of the
savings of digital distribution to price low enough to not be worth the bother of ripping off.
That's something that nobody accountable to their shareholders would believe until they found
it out for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 1:54 PM
in response to: rlhamil
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Yes,for me Richard, this is _exactly_ the issue.Thank you!
+10000000 form me.
Giacomo
_______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Adelaide, South Australia
Registered:
9/11/06
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 1:41 PM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
Chris,
> Things have to get simpler before they'll get better.
Have you ever tried to work out if the code you're writing relies
heavily enough on GPLv2 code that you need to GPLv2 it in a commercial
independent software vendor?
For some managers, contributing the parts one got free to the community
for no cost is "doable" but trying to get the parts they think they
"own" back is particularly difficult.
If one only talks within the GPL community or the GPL/FSF friendly
community, the GPL is probably the simplest license. However, I would be
careful because stating that the GPL is the most simple license or even
just a simple license, does not hold true across the board.
DSL
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 12:07 PM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
On Feb 11, 2007, at 01:03, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> The CDDL clause on forcing an entity to stop using CDDL software in
> case the company sues for patent infringement is, in my opinion, a
> gross poison pill, onerous to the small company whose patents are
> being infringed upon. You and I may not agree that patents on
> software should even exist, but the reality is that they do, and are
> an important asset in today's world. Forcing a company not to use the
> CDDL in the event such company wants to sue to protect its right is,
> in my humble opinion, worse of an infringement on freedom than any of
> the GPL2's terms.
Can you clarify for me why the patent-related terms in CDDL are more
onerous than those in section 7 of the GPLv2, please?
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 3:32 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 01:03, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> > The CDDL clause on forcing an entity to stop using CDDL software in
> > case the company sues for patent infringement is, in my opinion, a
> > gross poison pill, onerous to the small company whose patents are
> > being infringed upon. You and I may not agree that patents on
> > software should even exist, but the reality is that they do, and are
> > an important asset in today's world. Forcing a company not to use the
> > CDDL in the event such company wants to sue to protect its right is,
> > in my humble opinion, worse of an infringement on freedom than any of
> > the GPL2's terms.
>
> Can you clarify for me why the patent-related terms in CDDL are more
> onerous than those in section 7 of the GPLv2, please?
Worse is GPL §8, it makes a program definitely non-free and non OSI
compliant if an author choses to make use of it.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:59 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
--- Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 01:03, Christopher Mahan wrote:
>
> > The CDDL clause on forcing an entity to stop using CDDL software
> in
> > case the company sues for patent infringement is, in my opinion,
> a
> > gross poison pill, onerous to the small company whose patents are
> > being infringed upon. You and I may not agree that patents on
> > software should even exist, but the reality is that they do, and
> are
> > an important asset in today's world. Forcing a company not to use
> the
> > CDDL in the event such company wants to sue to protect its right
> is,
> > in my humble opinion, worse of an infringement on freedom than
> any of
> > the GPL2's terms.
>
> Can you clarify for me why the patent-related terms in CDDL are
> more
> onerous than those in section 7 of the GPLv2, please?
OK.
First, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
Let's look at the license sections:
CDDL (from http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html)
6.2. If You assert a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory
judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the
Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You assert such claim
is referred to as âParticipantâ) alleging that the Participant
Software (meaning the Contributor Version where the Participant is a
Contributor or the Original Software where the Participant is the
Initial Developer) directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then
any and all rights granted directly or indirectly to You by such
Participant, the Initial Developer (if the Initial Developer is not
the Participant) and all Contributors under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2
of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate
prospectively and automatically at the expiration of such 60 day
notice period, unless if within such 60 day period You withdraw Your
claim with respect to the Participant Software against such
Participant either unilaterally or pursuant to a written agreement
with Participant.
And now the GPL v2 (from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do
not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under
this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of
the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended
to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is
willing to distribute software through any other system and a
licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
--end of GPL quote
Ok. So here's the beef:
In the CDDL snippet, the first sentence start: "If You..." Notice
the "You" part. In the GPL, the first sentence, after the first
comma, reads: "conditions are imposed on you"
Ok. In the case of the CDDL, you have to initiate the action. In the
case of the GPL, actions may be forced on you (you may also initiate
the action but that would be a business decision).
Now, what would be the penalty?
In the case of the CDDL, you initiate the action, and someone (the
Participant) notifies you you can't use the software, and then,
unless you do something like come to an arrangement that the
Participant likes, you no longer have the right to use the software,
because the Participant has the right to terminate the CDDL license
agreement with you and you CANNOT USE THE SOFTWARE LEGALLY.
Now, let's go back to the GPL.
The second line from the top says: "If you cannot distribute so as to
satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
distribute the Program at all."
Ok, so now they are saying that if some of the code you own (have
written or are licensed to use) can't (for whatever reason) be
released under the GPL, then you can't DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM.
You notice the difference? In the CDDL, you lose the right to use the
software. In the GPL, you lose the right to distribute the software.
It says nothing about you being able to use the software.
This is why I say the CDDl is more onerous than the GPL.
Note also that under the CDDL, if you cannot use the software, then
you can definitely not redistribute it.
If you read a little further in the GPL, in section 7: "It is not the
purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or
other property right claims or to contest validity of any such
claims;..."
You will notice that the GPL does not contest the right of software
patents to exist, nor does it restrict the rights of patent holders
to exercise their rights to protect their patents, as well as other
property rights.
So there could be a scenario where a company uses GPL software, and
discovers that the software infringes on their one of their patents.
They could assert their legal claim against the software, forcing the
maintainers to remove the infringing elements of the software, and so
on... Yet, they would still be able to use the software, although now
they would not be able to distribute it, but they could use it
internally. They could, futher, still use and distribute a
non-infringing later version of the software.
With the CDDl, they would lose the ability to use the software
internally.
I'm a little rambly, but it's early and the caffeine hasn't kicked
in. I do think, however, that I gave you enough so that you may
understand my point of view sufficiently to take it into account in
your further research of this matter.
On a personal note, I am relatively disconcerted that the Chief Open
Source Officer at Sun Microsystems had to be explained the
difference. Oh well, live and learn.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 6:32 AM
in response to: jimgris
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I think that OGB position is reasonable especially around these points:
o Further discussions related to any form of dual licensing be
postponed until after the GPLv3 has been published and approved and
should take place on the OGB discussion forum only.
o Further discussion on GPL* is merely a diversion and distraction
that should be discouraged, so as to allow the community to
concentrate on the higher priority action items - especially those
that will improve developer mindshare.
and I want to respect it, but I can understand your position Jim especially when you promote a basic right to *encourage* conversations in a open community.This is democratic right.
So,if the main problem expressed by OGB is about to prevent any distraction at *main level* (discuss mailing list is at main level),can we open a new specific mailing list to promote the discuss about licenses issues?
Giacomo
_______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
321
From:
GB
Registered:
1/18/06
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 7:59 AM
in response to: axposf
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I think that OGB position is reasonable especially
> around these points:
>
> o Further discussions related to any form of dual
> licensing be
> postponed until after the GPLv3 has been published
> and approved and
> should take place on the OGB discussion forum only.
Sorry, I totally disagree. The licensing does not belong to
the members of the OGB. While they should have a say,
I don't think they have any more say than anybody who has
contributed to OpenSolaris. The discussion should be held
in the widest possible forum, which to me looks like
opensolaris-discuss. (Otherwise create an opensolaris-license-discuss)
>
> o Further discussion on GPL* is merely a diversion
> and distraction
> that should be discouraged, so as to allow the
> community to
> concentrate on the higher priority action items -
> especially those
> that will improve developer mindshare.
>
> and I want to respect it, but I can understand your
> position Jim especially when you promote a basic
> right to *encourage* conversations in a open
> community.This is democratic right.
> So,if the main problem expressed by OGB is about to
> prevent any distraction at *main level* (discuss
> mailing list is at main level),can we open a new
> specific mailing list to promote the discuss about
> licenses issues?
While "personally" I could not really care a toss about
the license. I do not think the discussion on it is a
distraction. I do agree that if people want to move it anywhere
other than opensolaris-discuss, it should to it's own forum
and not move to OGB discussion. I was very disappointed
in the OGB attempt to railroad the discussion and try to
enforce their personal views on the community.
I am also totally with Jim on the not using the term "FUD". You
generally see it used when somebody is running out of arguments.
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 8:26 AM
in response to: drdoug
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[i]The discussion should be held
in the widest possible forum, which to me looks like
opensolaris-discuss[/i]
Good for widest possible forum but if generic (like opensolaris-discuss) it could be problematic.The licenses issues are not generic but specific issues.So,a specific forum as opensolaris-licenses-discuss could be a solution?
Giacomo
______________________________________
OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
227
From:
US
Registered:
7/6/05
|
|
|
|
Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 1:28 PM
in response to: axposf
|
|
De Togni Giacomo wrote:
> [i]The discussion should be held
> in the widest possible forum, which to me looks like
> opensolaris-discuss[/i]
>
> Good for widest possible forum but if generic (like opensolaris-discuss) it could be problematic.The licenses issues are not generic but specific issues.So,a specific forum as opensolaris-licenses-discuss could be a solution?
>
>
> Giacomo
> ______________________________________
> OpenSolaris - The Pride of a community
>
>
>
I totally agree Giacomo. As much as I have tried, I just can't
interested in the licensing discussions. As someone who wants to use
the fruits of OpenSolaris for my own use and to make a living writing
software for the platform the differences in licensing just don't have
much of an impact. For the most part as long as it is open source is
all I care. I also believe that type of license isn't the main factor
of the success, the quality of the OS and the community as a whole is.
However, there are plenty of people that do really care about such
things and I feel there should be a place for those discussions. As time
goes on I would expect more things to discuss and not less. So consider
this a formal request for a new community/list for license discussions.
Bill
rushmores.net
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 8:10 PM
in response to: brushmor
|
|
On Feb 11, 2007, at 13:28, Bill Rushmore wrote:
> I totally agree Giacomo. As much as I have tried, I just can't
> interested in the licensing discussions. As someone who wants to
> use the fruits of OpenSolaris for my own use and to make a living
> writing software for the platform the differences in licensing just
> don't have much of an impact. For the most part as long as it is
> open source is all I care. I also believe that type of license
> isn't the main factor of the success, the quality of the OS and the
> community as a whole is.
This is a difficult subject. In a democracy, the voters ultimately
take responsibility for everything, not just the things they think
are interesting and fun. I thus get worried when I hear the idea of
saying "this is nothing to do with me" being asserted about complex
or controversial topics. This is not to criticise you, Bill, I have
have heard this from many people now.
> However, there are plenty of people that do really care about such
> things and I feel there should be a place for those discussions. As
> time goes on I would expect more things to discuss and not less.
> So consider this a formal request for a new community/list for
> license discussions.
I'd suggest that, as we have a member-based system emerging right
now, maybe we should have a list as Roy suggests that's writable only
by Core Contributors (readable by all). Time for an "opensolaris-
core" list perhaps, a place for substantive discussion of issues
facing the community, and hustings for the forthcoming elections?
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 9:02 PM
in response to: webmink
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I'd suggest that, as we have a member-based system
> emerging right
> now, maybe we should have a list as Roy suggests
> that's writable only
> by Core Contributors (readable by all). Time for an
> "opensolaris-
> core" list perhaps, a place for substantive
> discussion of issues
> facing the community, and hustings for the
> forthcoming elections?
>
> S.
So far, we've had a member-based system for voting, not discussion. I would prefer that discussions remain open.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
227
From:
US
Registered:
7/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 12, 2007 5:58 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 13:28, Bill Rushmore wrote:
>
>> I totally agree Giacomo. As much as I have tried, I just can't
>> interested in the licensing discussions. As someone who wants to use
>> the fruits of OpenSolaris for my own use and to make a living writing
>> software for the platform the differences in licensing just don't
>> have much of an impact. For the most part as long as it is open
>> source is all I care. I also believe that type of license isn't the
>> main factor of the success, the quality of the OS and the community
>> as a whole is.
>
> This is a difficult subject. In a democracy, the voters ultimately
> take responsibility for everything, not just the things they think are
> interesting and fun. I thus get worried when I hear the idea of saying
> "this is nothing to do with me" being asserted about complex or
> controversial topics. This is not to criticise you, Bill, I have have
> heard this from many people now.
>
>
Excellent point Simon and that is probably why most of us live in
republics. My preference is that I would rather see people who know
what they are doing in this area work on this. I know for me, I have
tried to look a this subject objectively but my decisions always come
down based on emotion because like you said, this is a complex topic. I
for one would love to see the irony fulfilled of GNU Not UNIX but...
If we had a complex controversial technical issue with the kernel would
we open it up to everyone's decision or would only people with the
expertise be involved?
Bill
rushmores.net
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 12, 2007 8:18 AM
in response to: brushmor
|
|
On Feb 12, 2007, at 05:58, Bill Rushmore wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 13:28, Bill Rushmore wrote:
>>
>>> I totally agree Giacomo. As much as I have tried, I just can't
>>> interested in the licensing discussions. As someone who wants to
>>> use the fruits of OpenSolaris for my own use and to make a living
>>> writing software for the platform the differences in licensing
>>> just don't have much of an impact. For the most part as long as
>>> it is open source is all I care. I also believe that type of
>>> license isn't the main factor of the success, the quality of the
>>> OS and the community as a whole is.
>>
>> This is a difficult subject. In a democracy, the voters ultimately
>> take responsibility for everything, not just the things they think
>> are interesting and fun. I thus get worried when I hear the idea
>> of saying "this is nothing to do with me" being asserted about
>> complex or controversial topics. This is not to criticise you,
>> Bill, I have have heard this from many people now.
>
> Excellent point Simon and that is probably why most of us live in
> republics. My preference is that I would rather see people who
> know what they are doing in this area work on this. I know for me,
> I have tried to look a this subject objectively but my decisions
> always come down based on emotion because like you said, this is a
> complex topic. I for one would love to see the irony fulfilled of
> GNU Not UNIX but...
>
> If we had a complex controversial technical issue with the kernel
> would we open it up to everyone's decision or would only people
> with the expertise be involved?
Well, the way the Constitution is written, issues are left to the
community that they affect, and only escalated when that community is
unable to reach agreement. So the issue you describe would be handled
as far as possible by the experts, but when no agreement could be
reached the OGB would be involved to break the deadlock (probably,
since they are not experts either, by reference to some sort of Core
Contributor list, although I don't believe that's defined).
In the case of licensing, since the issue is not restricted to a
single community I believe the best approach would be to refer first
to the core contributors. That in itself needs discussion: just them
or everyone, moderated or unmoderated, time-bounded or not, and so
on. I believe we need to just do it once or twice and learn from the
experience.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 12, 2007 9:20 AM
in response to: brushmor
|
|
Bill Rushmore wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 13:28, Bill Rushmore wrote:
>>
>>> I totally agree Giacomo. As much as I have tried, I just can't
>>> interested in the licensing discussions. As someone who wants to use
>>> the fruits of OpenSolaris for my own use and to make a living writing
>>> software for the platform the differences in licensing just don't
>>> have much of an impact. For the most part as long as it is open
>>> source is all I care. I also believe that type of license isn't the
>>> main factor of the success, the quality of the OS and the community
>>> as a whole is.
>>
>> This is a difficult subject. In a democracy, the voters ultimately
>> take responsibility for everything, not just the things they think are
>> interesting and fun. I thus get worried when I hear the idea of saying
>> "this is nothing to do with me" being asserted about complex or
>> controversial topics. This is not to criticise you, Bill, I have have
>> heard this from many people now.
>>
>>
>
> Excellent point Simon and that is probably why most of us live in
> republics. My preference is that I would rather see people who know
> what they are doing in this area work on this. I know for me, I have
> tried to look a this subject objectively but my decisions always come
> down based on emotion because like you said, this is a complex topic. I
> for one would love to see the irony fulfilled of GNU Not UNIX but...
>
> If we had a complex controversial technical issue with the kernel would
> we open it up to everyone's decision or would only people with the
> expertise be involved?
By that logic we would leave all the licensing discussion to all the Sun
lawyers who participate on opensolaris.org.....
... which would leave us with a very quiet mailing list.
(not that there's anything wrong with that :-P)
cheers,
steve
--
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:
815
From:
IE
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 12, 2007 1:15 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
> I'd suggest that, as we have a member-based system emerging right now,
> maybe we should have a list as Roy suggests that's writable only by
> Core Contributors (readable by all). Time for an "opensolaris-core"
> list perhaps, a place for substantive discussion of issues facing the
> community, and hustings for the forthcoming elections
Thus open up another question, who is qualified to be a member. Do we
have on a set of subjective of contribution criteria which are encompassing
more than just engineers? Can the membership be reviewed and approved by
leaders and its appointed subcommitee of each of the OpenSolaris
communities.
-Ghee
>
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hahn
sch@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 12, 2007 9:47 PM
in response to: gheet
|
|
* Ghee Teo <Ghee dot Teo at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-12 13:16]:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> >I'd suggest that, as we have a member-based system emerging right now,
> >maybe we should have a list as Roy suggests that's writable only by
> >Core Contributors (readable by all). Time for an "opensolaris-core"
> >list perhaps, a place for substantive discussion of issues facing the
> >community, and hustings for the forthcoming elections
>
> Thus open up another question, who is qualified to be a member. Do we
> have on a set of subjective of contribution criteria which are encompassing
> more than just engineers? Can the membership be reviewed and approved by
> leaders and its appointed subcommitee of each of the OpenSolaris
> communities.
Core Contributors, the only voting member class, are proposed by each
Community Group. As such, Community Groups like Marketing are
permitted (and expected) to have different criteria--I hope involving
an equivalent amount of time or energy--suited to the activities that
each Community Group sponsors. The Board would only step in in the
case of inactivity or abuse of Community Group privilege.
(Please consider reading the draft Constitution.)
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
815
From:
IE
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 1:42 AM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Ghee Teo <Ghee dot Teo at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-12 13:16]:
>
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest that, as we have a member-based system emerging right now,
>>> maybe we should have a list as Roy suggests that's writable only by
>>> Core Contributors (readable by all). Time for an "opensolaris-core"
>>> list perhaps, a place for substantive discussion of issues facing the
>>> community, and hustings for the forthcoming elections
>>>
>> Thus open up another question, who is qualified to be a member. Do we
>> have on a set of subjective of contribution criteria which are encompassing
>> more than just engineers? Can the membership be reviewed and approved by
>> leaders and its appointed subcommitee of each of the OpenSolaris
>> communities.
>>
>
> Core Contributors, the only voting member class, are proposed by each
> Community Group. As such, Community Groups like Marketing are
> permitted (and expected) to have different criteria--I hope involving
> an equivalent amount of time or energy--suited to the activities that
> each Community Group sponsors. The Board would only step in in the
> case of inactivity or abuse of Community Group privilege.
>
> (Please consider reading the draft Constitution.)
>
Cool, and where is the draft constitution?
-Ghee
> - Stephen
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
815
From:
IE
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 7:57 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
>> Cool, and where is the draft constitution?
>>
>
> I suspect you're looking for this:
>
> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03
>
YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many
things have
been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do not subscribe
to naturally.
I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :)
has to explicitly
requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the
formulation of the membership list :/
What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with
reasonable accuracy?
We don't want to swamp Stephen Hann with hundreds of email request, or
do we :)?
-Ghee
> -Shawn
>
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 8:53 AM
in response to: gheet
|
|
Ghee Teo wrote:
> I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :)
> has to explicitly
> requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in
> the
> formulation of the membership list :/
The problem that caused Roland to be left out is that "contributors" are
associated with/nominated only by communities, not projects, and most of
Roland's work has been with projects (especially ksh93-integration).
It does seem strange if we're trying to capture the list of those doing
the most work to exclude the mechanisms set up to organize work (projects).
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hahn
sch@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:31 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
* Alan Coopersmith <alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com> [2007-02-13 08:54]:
> Ghee Teo wrote:
> >I fear many are left out and to see 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :)
> >has to explicitly
> >requesting to be added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in
> >the
> >formulation of the membership list :/
>
> The problem that caused Roland to be left out is that "contributors" are
> associated with/nominated only by communities, not projects, and most of
> Roland's work has been with projects (especially ksh93-integration).
>
> It does seem strange if we're trying to capture the list of those doing
> the most work to exclude the mechanisms set up to organize work (projects).
The present form makes pursuit of Community Group sponsorship and
Contributor status up to the project leads. Failures to match up
sponsorship may have multiple causes, with appeal to the Governing
Board as a fallback.
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hahn
sch@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:27 AM
in response to: gheet
|
|
* Ghee Teo <Ghee dot Teo at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-13 07:58]:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> Cool, and where is the draft constitution?
> >
> >I suspect you're looking for this:
> >
> >http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03
>
> YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many
> things have been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do
> not subscribe to naturally. I fear many are left out and to see
> 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be
> added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the
> formulation of the membership list :/
The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community
Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core
Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group. The pursuit of
sponsorship is open to either a project or a Community Group.
> What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with
> reasonable accuracy? We don't want to swamp Stephen Hahn with
> hundreds of email request, or do we :)?
I would rather be swamped than get nothing.
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:36 AM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn writes:
> The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community
> Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core
> Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group.
That doesn't happen, though.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hahn
sch@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:46 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
* James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-13 09:36]:
> Stephen Hahn writes:
> > The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community
> > Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core
> > Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group.
>
> That doesn't happen, though.
Not yet, no: my first excuse is that we're in the bootstrap phase of
the process. But even during the bootstrap, people have recourse to
the Board.
I suppose the priority that I am operating with (divined from the
Board, I think) is that we need an elected Board with a clearer
mandate to make changes. First on that set of changes (I hope) is
some reeducation of what it means to have a Community Group--it's not
just a set of web pages and an alias, but a responsibility to act as
the embassy for a set of technical or social interests to the larger
Community. That is, it's work, which I don't think was made clear
during the earlier phases of the effort.
(But in all of the current development process, the onus is on the
individual or group suggesting change... so we're at least
consistent. :) )
- Stephen
--
Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen dot hahn at sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 8:50 PM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Hi,
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-13 09:36]:
>> Stephen Hahn writes:
>>> The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community
>>> Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core
>>> Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group.
>> That doesn't happen, though.
>
> Not yet, no: my first excuse is that we're in the bootstrap phase of
> the process. But even during the bootstrap, people have recourse to
> the Board.
>
> I suppose the priority that I am operating with (divined from the
> Board, I think) is that we need an elected Board with a clearer
> mandate to make changes. First on that set of changes (I hope) is
> some reeducation of what it means to have a Community Group--it's not
> just a set of web pages and an alias, but a responsibility to act as
> the embassy for a set of technical or social interests to the larger
> Community. That is, it's work, which I don't think was made clear
> during the earlier phases of the effort.
Long term, FWIW, I'd like to see a Membership committee/working group elected by
the board to handle recommendations or otherwise for new Members. It would be
neutral consistent body that could be able to handle new requests and confirm
references on the application with the associating community group.
I know this sounds like we're pushing away everything from the OGB, but I see is
as a relatively easy barrier to entry for getting involved in the project.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
815
From:
IE
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion
(was CAB/OGB Position
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 9:59 AM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Ghee Teo <Ghee dot Teo at Sun dot COM> [2007-02-13 07:58]:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>>> Cool, and where is the draft constitution?
>>>>
>>> I suspect you're looking for this:
>>>
>>> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Governance_Draft_03
>>>
>>
>> YES. Thanks! I will read that. I also realised this morning that many
>> things have been discussed in cab-discuss which many on this list do
>> not subscribe to naturally. I fear many are left out and to see
>> 'rock' start like Roland Mainz :) has to explicitly requesting to be
>> added to the core contributor list just simply WRONG in the
>> formulation of the membership list :/
>>
>
> The current approach is that projects seek sponsoring Community
> Groups, and that project leads will become Contributors or Core
> Contributors in the sponsoring Community Group. The pursuit of
> sponsorship is open to either a project or a Community Group.
>
I agree with the approach here. Though, has there been a
communication breakdown
somewhere. I have been put onto co-lead a printing project recently
with Norm Jacobs.
Neither Norm nor my name appears on the list of you got here.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/servlet/JiveServlet/download/17-23690-91845-2080/0-070207-plain.txt
Norm is also a community leader for the open printing community.
How can we improve the awareness of this across all communities and
projects.
-Ghee
>
>> What can we do complete the list of contributors as broad yet with
>> reasonable accuracy? We don't want to swamp Stephen Hahn with
>> hundreds of email request, or do we :)?
>>
>
> I would rather be swamped than get nothing.
>
> - Stephen
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,901
From:
NZ
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Request a new Community for License Discussion (was
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207)
Posted:
Feb 13, 2007 1:52 AM
in response to: Stephen Hahn
|
|
Hey,
Stephen Hahn wrote:
> Core Contributors, the only voting member class, are proposed by each
> Community Group. As such, Community Groups like Marketing are
> permitted (and expected) to have different criteria
Sorry to be devil's advocate here, but is that really such a good thing? While
it is of course good at a local level (particularly within that particular
Group), how does it effect things for something potentially more global like the
community elections? Could it increase bias at all in the proceedings?
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
142
From:
Newport Beach, California
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 12:26 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> In parts, this document attempts to thwart conversation on
> OpenSolaris, and I don't support that strategy under any
> circumstance -- especially since so many of us have worked so hard
> to have /open/ conversations. Also, the OpenSolaris Community is
> nascent, and I believe we should /encourage/ conversation, not /
> discourage/ it -- no matter what the issue is as long as the
> conversation is respectful.
You say "OpenSolaris Community", but you don't define what that means.
How do you have a conversation with the community when you have no idea
who you are talking to on this list?
Is the OpenSolaris Community the people subscribed to this list?
I don't think so, since the list is open for anyone to post and
that can be easily influenced by an orchestrated media campaign.
Is it the people who post the most messages to this list? No, there
are quite a few people who only post here because they are not working
on OpenSolaris, for one reason or another. In fact, there is only a
relatively small number of hard-core Solaris developer/advocates on
this list who have a seemingly endless capacity for reading and
responding to mail. And that number decreases every time there is
an irrelevant conversation on this list.
The OGB does not want to "thwart conversation". I would like for
the conversation to be richer, containing actual facts and reasoning
based on a common source of information, and not just a bunch of
gossip around a marketing campaign that is neither informed nor
sensitive to the requirements of *this* community. And, when that
conversation takes place, it needs to be somewhere that only the
community members can post to -- not anyone who happens to swing by
the forums in response to the marketing campaign. That is how we
can have a conversation with the community.
Apache has project-specific "use", development, and private lists,
occasionally a project-wide general list, one community list
(where only contributors can post but the archives are readable by
anyone), one private members list (open only to ASF members), and
one board list (open to members and officers). When we want to
have a conversation with a project, we have it on that project's
general or dev list (only personnel, NDA, and not-yet-announced
security issues are allowed on private lists). When we want to
have a conversation with the entire Apache community, we have it on
either the community list (for development/project-wide issues) or
the members list (for strategic policy or business issues).
There is no anonymous communication at Apache and no forum software
for any of those lists, and thus no transients or trolls can have
undue influence on the conversation. Those conversations aren't
always pretty, and they can explode at times as well, but at least
we know that the persons talking and being talked to are part of
our community. We know they are part of it because they have earned
the right to be named as such, and thus have a vested interest in
the ongoing health of the community as a whole.
Easily the biggest problem that I have had with the way that
OpenSolaris has been organized is the way that community lists were
created without an emphasis on contribution, and the notion that
anyone who happens to register on the website is instantly
considered part of the community. In fact, they are just observers,
and no more part of the community than the folks driving past
my neighborhood. I know this is a bootstrapping process, and that
the actual communities will sort themselves out in time, but we
are at a critical juncture right now with regards to setting up
the real project governance via a constitution that will allow
each community to form and maintain itself. Now is not the time
to be pretending that a conversation on this list is actually
engaging the OpenSolaris Community. The conversation can wait
until the facts are on the table and the community is well-defined,
which is what the position paper says.
....Roy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 9:36 PM
in response to: fielding
|
|
Hi ...
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
>> In parts, this document attempts to thwart conversation on
>> OpenSolaris, and I don't support that strategy under any circumstance
>> -- especially since so many of us have worked so hard to have /open/
>> conversations. Also, the OpenSolaris Community is nascent, and I
>> believe we should /encourage/ conversation, not / discourage/ it -- no
>> matter what the issue is as long as the conversation is respectful.
>
>
> You say "OpenSolaris Community", but you don't define what that means.
> How do you have a conversation with the community when you have no idea
> who you are talking to on this list?
This is difficult, I admit. But I mean the people trying to participate
openly on these lists -- both Sun and non-Sun people. That's all I have
to work with, to be honest.
> Is the OpenSolaris Community the people subscribed to this list?
> I don't think so, since the list is open for anyone to post and
> that can be easily influenced by an orchestrated media campaign.
So, who is the OpenSolaris community then?
> Is it the people who post the most messages to this list? No, there
> are quite a few people who only post here because they are not working
> on OpenSolaris, for one reason or another. In fact, there is only a
> relatively small number of hard-core Solaris developer/advocates on
> this list who have a seemingly endless capacity for reading and
> responding to mail. And that number decreases every time there is
> an irrelevant conversation on this list.
It's true that list subscriptions on opensolaris-discuss go down after
flamefests. Just slightly, though, and only for a few weeks. We've been
pretty steady at around 800 for a while now. But these discussions on
opensolaris-discuss don't really affect the technical discussions going
on within the technical lists. Yes, a great number of people everywhere
roll their eyes when this happens, but I'm at a loss on how to deal with
it. Don't we need a general list as a community commons where anyone can
go? For instance, I can live here and talk about general community
issues, as can many others, but I'd be hard pressed to hang out on the
ZFS or DTrace or ARC or other project lists because those lists are
highly technical and don't involve meta community issues like we are
talking about here. I feel pretty certain that opensolaris-discuss does
not represent where the core of the technical people communicate.
> The OGB does not want to "thwart conversation".
If that's your intent, I certainly believe you. However, I would suggest
revising statements like, "Further discussion on GPL* is merely a
diversion and distraction that should be discouraged," because that's
confusing to me and it seems to assert the opposite of your intent.
>I would like for
> the conversation to be richer, containing actual facts and reasoning
> based on a common source of information, and not just a bunch of
> gossip around a marketing campaign that is neither informed nor
> sensitive to the requirements of *this* community.
I agree on the richer bit. :) I think everyone does at this point, too.
However, some people certainly have articulated well thought out
positions and their posts are absolutely respectful.
If by "marketing campaign" you are referring to all the media around the
issue, I would agree that that's unfortunate. It's also largely out of
our control. I've said so internally, too, not that it matters much at
my level, of course. This may surprise many people on the list, but just
because some of us work at Sun, we don't necessarily have access to
every level of executive engagement.
Also, many of us have been trying hard to increase the communications
channels between more levels of the company and the community. It's not
easy, I can assure you. How I personally handle it by trying to get more
and more people within Sun to participate in the community. I admit, I
haven't been that successful in that in the short term. However, I'm
sensitive to the very different world the executives live in (I used to
be around them quite a lot). So although I recognize that the
communications situation is not the best right now, I'm also not willing
to flame the execs (or the lawyers, or the marketing people, or whoever
else has been flamed in this conversation). I support their right to
have conversations in the media about this. I just think that the
OpenSolaris community ought to be involved as well.
Now, this brings up a core issue: whose decision is this? Is it Sun's
(as in Sun's executive management), or the OpenSolaris Community's, or
some combination of both? I'm not at all clear on this point. I've heard
many views expressed, but I'm looking to the OGB to make this point
clear for the community.
>And, when that
> conversation takes place, it needs to be somewhere that only the
> community members can post to -- not anyone who happens to swing by
> the forums in response to the marketing campaign. That is how we
> can have a conversation with the community.
>
> Apache has project-specific "use", development, and private lists,
> occasionally a project-wide general list, one community list
> (where only contributors can post but the archives are readable by
> anyone), one private members list (open only to ASF members), and
> one board list (open to members and officers). When we want to
> have a conversation with a project, we have it on that project's
> general or dev list (only personnel, NDA, and not-yet-announced
> security issues are allowed on private lists). When we want to
> have a conversation with the entire Apache community, we have it on
> either the community list (for development/project-wide issues) or
> the members list (for strategic policy or business issues).
>
> There is no anonymous communication at Apache and no forum software
> for any of those lists, and thus no transients or trolls can have
> undue influence on the conversation. Those conversations aren't
> always pretty, and they can explode at times as well, but at least
> we know that the persons talking and being talked to are part of
> our community. We know they are part of it because they have earned
> the right to be named as such, and thus have a vested interest in
> the ongoing health of the community as a whole.
All very good points. Thank you. I think initially we were sensitive to
not restricting access to anyone for any reason. I remember three years
ago having these conversations because the environment outside Sun and
the OpenSolaris project was so openly hostile toward us. We wanted to be
as open in our conversations as possible -- knowing full well that it
would be messy and that the opening of all this stuff would take place
over time. That's my understanding of the thinking back then.
Many people coming to OpenSolaris from well-established open source
communities need to realize that it was not ok for us Sun employees to
speak outside the company until very recently. I've said that
OpenSolaris has changed the company, and this is one key way. We wanted
to release the source /and/ move the development outside /while/ still
shipping the company's core product.
So, now we are well ahead of where we were, perhaps it's time to look at
how communication occurs on our lists. I'm certainly willing to engage
in that conversation because although I supported our decision about
this early on, I'm not sure it works all that well anymore.
> Easily the biggest problem that I have had with the way that
> OpenSolaris has been organized is the way that community lists were
> created without an emphasis on contribution, and the notion that
> anyone who happens to register on the website is instantly
> considered part of the community. In fact, they are just observers,
> and no more part of the community than the folks driving past
> my neighborhood.
I'm happy to hear you say this. I think all would agree, too. I also
think this issue needs better understanding within Sun about how
community-building occurs, how a company contributes to that, and how
it's quantified in various metrics.
>I know this is a bootstrapping process, and that
> the actual communities will sort themselves out in time, but we
> are at a critical juncture right now with regards to setting up
> the real project governance via a constitution that will allow
> each community to form and maintain itself. Now is not the time
> to be pretending that a conversation on this list is actually
> engaging the OpenSolaris Community. The conversation can wait
> until the facts are on the table and the community is well-defined,
> which is what the position paper says.
I understand your intention from this mail, but I don't read any of that
in the position paper. Who is the audience for the paper? Sun
executives? The OpenSolaris Community? If you are talking to the Sun
executives with that paper, I doubt they'll listen. It's simply not a
good articulation of the issue, and I doubt it actually represents the
views of the community.
Look, everyone's pissed off here. And I can see most of the sides
(though certainly not all). There are threads on opensolaris.org, there
are threads inside Sun, and there are now even more press articles
feeding and inflaming both -- while far too many reasonable people are
sitting quiet. None of this will stop because we are now talking /at/
each other, not /with/ each other.
I appreciate the intention of the OGB to get involved, and I think
that's ultimately the way to go because I see it specified that the OGB
will act as the interface between Sun and the community. I suggest that
the OGB update the document so it's at least at a v1 level, take out all
emotional language (FUD, decree, campaign, etc), more fully articulate
some of the issues, directly address and clarify whose decision this is
and who plays a complementary role, and then call for a meeting with Sun
executive management. This will not get resolved on this list, and it
certainly will not get resolved in the media. It will only get resolved
in a face-to-face (or phone conference) meeting so everyone's clear.
I suggest this because I believe that the level of trust has clearly
broken down here, and that simply doesn't have to be. I also believe
that people involved have honorable intentions. I simply think we've had
a pretty major mis-understanding. Let's address it /now/ because it will
happen again. Of that I'm absolutely certain.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207
Posted:
Feb 11, 2007 9:54 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
>
> Look, everyone's pissed off here. And I can see most of the sides
> (though certainly not all). There are threads on opensolaris.org, there
> are threads inside Sun, and there are now even more press articles
> feeding and inflaming both -- while far too many reasonable people are
> sitting quiet. None of this will stop because we are now talking /at/
> each other, not /with/ each other.
I missed most of this thread because I was busy doing a move of
Blastwave.org to a whole new server room facility. I see expansion in my
future. So I'm not ticked at anyone .. jsut really blind tired. I'll
have a look at it but .. if its more people yelling at each other then
maybe we can all just take a break and grab some air. Smoke'em if ya
got'em.
Then tomorrow we see if we can work a few things out.
I know that I'm just wandering in here .. knowing very little. That's the
nature of this open community. Anyone can wander in and out. Things get
said or heard out of context but in general I'd like to think we are
working in a common direction. I know I am .. and so are a pile of other
people. There is "peace" to be found if we look for it.
I'll recover from the last 72 hours of intense work and then see what is
going on.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
