|
Replies:
79
-
Last Post:
Feb 3, 2007 10:08 AM
by: jimgris
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 4:44 PM
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
GPLv3. In November
Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen discussions in blogs
(Rich,
Simon)
and in the news
(CNet,
eWeek),
but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself.
I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities.
But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 4:51 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
*sigh*
here we go with this again...
*Dons asbestos suit in preparation for the ensuing flamewar*
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 4:54 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
> In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
> prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
> GPLv3. In November
>
> Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and
> everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has
> made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen
> discussions in blogs
> ( href="http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/all_the_news_that_s">Rich,
> Simon)
> and in the news
> (CNet,
> eWeek),
> but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself.
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we
> think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
> could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a
> world of possibilities.
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
> GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with
> an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
Two things come to mind right away :
(1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
and her officers.
Such a move would, in my mind, toss the OpenSolaris Charter and
Governance out the window.
(2) Based on my concerns expressed above would an opinion from the
unwashed masses have any value?
Those are my initial thoughts.
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:02 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> In the last few months I've seen more and more speculation about the
>> prospect of dual-licensing OpenSolaris under
>> GPLv3. In November
>>
>> Jonathan very publically asked Rich if he would look into it, and
>> everyone knows that we are fully engaged in the GPLv3 process. As Rich has
>> made clear, we're looking into it. No decisions have been made. We've seen
>> discussions in blogs
>> (> href="http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/all_the_news_that_s">Rich,
>> Simon)
>> and in the news
>> (CNet,
>> eWeek),
>> but I haven't seen much in the OpenSolaris community itself.
>
>> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we
>> think about GPLv3. What would it
>> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
>> could attach an "assembly exception"
>> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a
>> world of possibilities.
>
>> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
>> GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with
>> an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
>
> Two things come to mind right away :
>
> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
>
> Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
> from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
> made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
> and her officers.
>
> Such a move would, in my mind, toss the OpenSolaris Charter and
> Governance out the window.
You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch
- but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
-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:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:06 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau wrote:
>
> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
> explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
> the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
> switch - but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
>
Does that (the copyright ownership) also apply to contributed code?
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:10 PM
in response to: ian
|
|
Ian Collins wrote:
> Stephen Lau wrote:
>
>> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
>> explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
>> the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
>> switch - but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
>>
> Does that (the copyright ownership) also apply to contributed code?
>
> Ian
joint-copyright, yes... that's how the SCA (Sun Contributor Agreement)
works.
-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
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Buckingham
Peter.Buckingham@Sun...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:13 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Stephen Lau wrote:
>>
>>> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
>>> explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
>>> the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license
>>> switch - but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
>>>
>> Does that (the copyright ownership) also apply to contributed code?
>>
>> Ian
>
> joint-copyright, yes... that's how the SCA (Sun Contributor Agreement)
> works.
Note this isn't unusual. SGI asks anyone who makes changes to XFS on
linux to assign the copyright to them.
peter
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:44 AM
in response to: Peter Buckingham
|
|
Peter Buckingham <Peter dot Buckingham at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> > joint-copyright, yes... that's how the SCA (Sun Contributor Agreement)
> > works.
>
> Note this isn't unusual. SGI asks anyone who makes changes to XFS on
> linux to assign the copyright to them.
Europeans (at least definitely Germans) cannot assign "copyrigths"
to someone else if you use the official translation "Urheberrecht" for
Copyright. If you use the term "Nutzungsrechte", things look different...
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:38 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
>>> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what
we think about GPLv3. What would it
>>> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
>>> could attach an "assembly exception"
>>> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open
up a
>>> world of possibilities.
>>> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way
>>> GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with
>>> an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
>> Two things come to mind right away :
>> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
and her officers.
>> Such a move would, in my mind, toss the OpenSolaris Charter and
Governance out the window.
>
> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As the
copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch - but
this is not a unilateral executive decision.
No. I read clearly. This is a call for opinion.
For what purpose? To what effect ?
I have been here, involved since the pilot back in the days when Jason
Perlow was also in the pilot. Back when Danese Cooper was working on the
creation of a new license called the CDDL. A license that is perfectly
viable, presented and accepted by the OSI:
http://news.com.com/Sun+license+gets+open-source+nod/2100-7344_3-5540961.html
So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have an opinon
with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea
from the hallways of the same people that put "Java" in front of everything.
Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people that are NOT
joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that did NOT
arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX operating system.
Back in 2005 we were not looking at the GPL which would have been a viable
license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL? Why are we
now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of OpenSolaris?
Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of people
NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we rename
this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community Source
License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix something.
There are far more important issues to ask in this project :
(1) why do we have source that can not be built into a runnable OS ?
(2) why are key components held back ? libc_i18n.a for example
This call for opinions and discussion feels like something from that movie
"wag the dog" in which we are asked to raise awareness and market value.
Its not a particularly fun process to watch a project for two years and see
such tepid levels of community activity. Certainly after so much fanfare
and hoopla.
If slapping yet another legal document on top seems to help then fine. I
would like to see the GPLv3 complete first and officers of Sun INC should
not be discussing the issue *here* until it is a complete document. Its
outside of the scope of the OpenSolaris project and not our venue. I am
more concerned with getting software that helps people into their hands.
Its like feeding hungry people. You can stand on the sidelines talking and
talking about world hunger or you can go out and actually feed them. I'd
rather just get real work done please.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:23 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have an opinon
> with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a marketing idea
> from the hallways of the same people that put "Java" in front of everything.
> Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people that are NOT
> joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that did NOT
> arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX operating system.
> Back in 2005 we were not looking at the GPL which would have been a viable
> license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL? Why are we
> now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of OpenSolaris?
> Let's fast forward two more years and if we have another mad rush of people
> NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we rename
> this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community Source
> License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix something.
Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:34 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
On 30-Jan-07, at 8:23 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
>
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have
>> an opinon
>> with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a
>> marketing idea
>> from the hallways of the same people that put "Java" in front of
>> everything.
>> Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people
>> that are NOT
>> joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that
>> did NOT
>> arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX
>> operating system. Back in 2005 we were not looking at the GPL
>> which would have been a viable
>> license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL?
>> Why are we
>> now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of
>> OpenSolaris? Let's fast forward two more years and if we have
>> another mad rush of people
>> NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we
>> rename
>> this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community
>> Source
>> License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix
>> something.
>
>
> Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
>
> Jim
I didn't get that expression that he was saying anything of the sort....
I parsed dennis' gripes as being more an expression that instead of
fixing the *real* problems in opensolaris, Sun's just license
jumping... it's less work to relicense the code & hope Stallman et.
al endorse us than it is to fix the code contribution method, or
rewrite (or otherwise open) libc_i18n.a & the rest of closed_bins ,
or any other number of things wrong with the OpenSol project that can
be fixed given the engineering, marketing & legal muscle of SUNW,
should they chose to do it.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:37 PM
in response to: error404
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I parsed dennis' gripes as being more an expression
> that instead of
> fixing the *real* problems in opensolaris, Sun's just
> license
> jumping... it's less work to relicense the code &
> hope Stallman et.
> al endorse us than it is to fix the code contribution
> method, or
> rewrite (or otherwise open) libc_i18n.a & the rest of
> closed_bins ,
> or any other number of things wrong with the OpenSol
> project that can
> be fixed given the engineering, marketing & legal
> muscle of SUNW,
> should they chose to do it.
>
>
> -John
Agreed. My interpretation and experience has been the same.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:41 PM
in response to: error404
|
|
>
> On 30-Jan-07, at 8:23 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> So I have been watching this for a while and I think that I have
>>> an opinon
>>> with at least some value. In my opinion this feels like a
>>> marketing idea
>>> from the hallways of the same people that put "Java" in front of
>>> everything.
>>> Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush of people
>>> that are NOT
>>> joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of people that
>>> did NOT
>>> arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the UNIX
>>> operating system. Back in 2005 we were not looking at the GPL
>>> which would have been a viable
>>> license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL?
>>> Why are we
>>> now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of
>>> OpenSolaris? Let's fast forward two more years and if we have
>>> another mad rush of people
>>> NOT joining this project what then? Another marketting fix and we
>>> rename
>>> this to the Java Enterprise OpenSolaris project with Sun Community
>>> Source
>>> License ( SCSL ) license added and on and on we go trying to fix
>>> something.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
>>
>> Jim
>
> I didn't get that expression that he was saying anything of the sort....
>
> I parsed dennis' gripes as being more an expression that instead of
> fixing the *real* problems in opensolaris, Sun's just license
> jumping... it's less work to relicense the code & hope Stallman et.
> al endorse us than it is to fix the code contribution method, or
> rewrite (or otherwise open) libc_i18n.a & the rest of closed_bins ,
> or any other number of things wrong with the OpenSol project that can
> be fixed given the engineering, marketing & legal muscle of SUNW,
> should they chose to do it.
from the irc channel .. where I talk much more freely and work things
out. I try to dump the frustration also.
dclarke well .. I think .. really I do .. that we have a lot of good will
and good people in this project
dclarke given some resources and a bit of real collaboration .. we could
really create something beautiful
dclarke all ego aside ... I'm not very good at doing the really hard stuff
.. but I can help people that want to
dclarke maybe we can find a way ..
dclarke God knows .. I want to
so thats my gut feeling.
and yes .. I'm frustrated that a whack of Linux community people never
showed up. IBM people are not here. That the mail lists are full of
Sun.COM email addresses and people internal with internal agenda's etc etc.
A lot of things just seem behind closed doors still.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:28 AM
in response to: dclarke
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
[...]
> and yes .. I'm frustrated that a whack of Linux
> community people never
> showed up. IBM people are not here. That the mail
> lists are full of
> Sun.COM email addresses and people internal with
> internal agenda's etc etc.
> A lot of things just seem behind closed doors still.
Don't forget the Tadpole guy that _is_ here; I think I saw someone
from Fujitsu, too. There are some (if not a lot) of people who've
worked with and contributed to Linux here. And do you have access
to the registration information, such that you _know_ there's nobody
from IBM here? What about Apple porting DTrace (and according to
some rumors, working on zfs) to MacOS X? What about the zfs to FreeBSD
port? What about various drivers whose starting points have come from one
or more of the *BSDs? What about increasing amount of external open source
software available for Solaris, both via Sun and via your efforts? What about
the two AT&T ksh guys participating in the ksh93 integration project?
What about the deal with Intel?
Having said that, I do agree with some things you've said. Sun's
marketing department needs a major overhaul; anyone that thinks
that changing the name of products every couple of years or other
such shell games (which although not marketing's fault, dual-licensing
also is _unless_ clear benefits can be identified) is worse than useless,
insofar as renaming for anything less than a total rewrite simply
distracts and confuses, and done repeatedly, wastes credibility.
As to whether there _would_be_ clear benefits to dual-licensing, I think
that needs (a) wait to see exactly what GPLv3 would look like, (b) identify
what those benefits might be and how they might work (keeping in mind
that _just_ seeking acceptance is a defensive position at best) and how likely
they are to work, (c) take into account any downside of a dual-license arrangement,
and (d) reach out to not only the OpenSolaris community, but also the Linux and FSF folks
(between which there may be a split between GPLv2 _only_ or GPLv2 _or_later_), the
*BSD folks, Apple, Tadpole, Fujitsu, IBM, NCR (if they're still doing anything with Solaris),
Dell (if they give a darn), and anyone else that has an interest that might be mutually
beneficial, to get some idea what their reactions to a dual-license arrangement might be.
Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, and look at other cases of dual-licensing
and to see what benefits vs problems they've encountered (and don't forget perl as
a possibly successful counter-example to claims that other dual-license arrangements
have had their problems).
All of that, and probably more, is needed to get a big enough picture to decide realistically
what the benefits might be.
Now just perhaps, that's been happening; and maybe the talk and hype has been in part to
get more people thinking about it. So maybe when GPLv3 is finalized, there will be
enough information to talk about this intelligently. Until then, while plenty of points can
be raised, I don't think there's much use in staking out strong pro or con positions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:27 AM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
Jim Grisanzio <Jim dot Grisanzio at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:11 PM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote On 02/01/07 04:27,:
> Jim Grisanzio <Jim dot Grisanzio at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>
>
>>Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
>
>
> You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
> and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
I'd like to grow a bit faster, but in general I absolutely agree with
your comment here. Thanks.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:16 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
>
> Joerg Schilling wrote On 02/01/07 04:27,:
>> Jim Grisanzio <Jim dot Grisanzio at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
>>
>>
>> You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
>> and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
>
>
> I'd like to grow a bit faster, but in general I absolutely agree with
> your comment here. Thanks.
All in all we may be doing the best that we can given the circumstances.
Let' face the facts, a very closed process hidden behind layers of
concrete and security is being brought open. We see piles of traffic
from Sun folks here out in the open. Its been a long haul and yes,
some progress has been made. Perhaps I simply expected ... more.
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:08 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:16 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> All in all we may be doing the best that we can given the circumstances.
>
> Let' face the facts, a very closed process hidden behind layers of
> concrete and security is being brought open. We see piles of traffic
> from Sun folks here out in the open. Its been a long haul and yes,
> some progress has been made. Perhaps I simply expected ... more.
I don't know what anyone should expect. Sun took a very closed process and
opened it up, even when most outside folks laughed at the thought of it, in
regards to existing licenses on the code.
Sun has made huge strides to working with outside folks, it just needs more
time to mature more, but I think we've done a pretty good job consider all
the legal tape that exists with such code.
But trust me, there is no lower bar inside Sun, and I wouldn't consider myself
to be accepted by the movers and shakers of Solaris proper either. So,
outsiders shouldn't feel alienated, everyone is alienated the same.<g> Yes,
things continue to change, and barriers get broken all the time. In this
regard Sun is making huge improvements in the right direction. The fact is
that external folks face the same challenges as internal folks, just that
they don't see it the same and think they're at a dis-advantage.
Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that made
Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today. It's hard
to critisize a process that has turned out such a great product.
This is why I don't really care what the license is, as long as we can work in
the open source communities. People can split all the hairs they want over
licensing, but I consider Solaris/OpenSolaris to be a huge success already.
As we gain more acceptance in other communities (BSD, Linux, Apple, Intel,
IBM, etc...), we will only be more successful and continue to grow.
We have more interest from IHVs/OEMs than ever before, and there's a lot of
interest in folks using it.
No, we won't elliminate world hunger by changing the license, but we might be
able to feed more people in our community by doing so. If so, I'm all for it.
Creating more hunger would be a bad thing, although many would like to put
the blame on Sun for any that does happen.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 7:09 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/01/07 11:08,:
> Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that made
> Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today. It's hard
> to critisize a process that has turned out such a great product.
An interesting process point in support of this: way back before we did
the pilot, we went around and talked to a bunch of customers, ISVs,
partners, etc. Whenever I spoke with engineers and managers from
enterprise customers about our plans to open up Solaris, they generally
immediately shot back with this: "We love that you are opening the
source, but we don't want you to toss out your development methodology
and all the processes that make Solaris great." Or words to that effect.
This came up in virtually every meeting. But, since we always planned to
/open/ the process, not toss it, we could easily answer this question.
Implementing the change is another matter, I realize, but I also see
that very much on the horizon. Which is cool.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 7:00 PM
in response to: jimgris
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:09 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/01/07 11:08,:
> > Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that
> > made Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today.
> > It's hard to critisize a process that has turned out such a great
> > product.
>
> An interesting process point in support of this: way back before we did
> the pilot, we went around and talked to a bunch of customers, ISVs,
> partners, etc. Whenever I spoke with engineers and managers from
> enterprise customers about our plans to open up Solaris, they generally
> immediately shot back with this: "We love that you are opening the
> source, but we don't want you to toss out your development methodology
> and all the processes that make Solaris great." Or words to that effect.
> This came up in virtually every meeting. But, since we always planned to
> /open/ the process, not toss it, we could easily answer this question.
> Implementing the change is another matter, I realize, but I also see
> that very much on the horizon. Which is cool.
This is really the biggest double edge sword OpenSolaris has faced as a
community. How can we get software putback, but how do we keep the high
standards that have been put in place.
Even the customers were telling us they like the fact that Sun does scrutinize
and hold such a high standard. Since going open with ON, management seems to
want things faster, get things putback faster, and do more.
The reality is that if we want to hold the same high standard that has made
Solaris what it is today, we should continue as development has been done,
educate the folks on how things are done inside of Sun, and help them be a
part of the process.
As with the licensing, let's not point fingers at Sun or the Community, let's
try to work out things the best we can and move forward.
Sun has made huge strides in what they've done, and if any of the community
folks don't feel that way, they really are sheltered from the complete
process of how Solaris Engineering works.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Maintaining standards - was Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 7:13 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
>This is really the biggest double edge sword OpenSolaris has faced as a
>community. How can we get software putback, but how do we keep the high
>standards that have been put in place.
>
>Even the customers were telling us they like the fact that Sun does scrutinize
>and hold such a high standard. Since going open with ON, management seems to
>want things faster, get things putback faster, and do more.
>
>The reality is that if we want to hold the same high standard that has made
>Solaris what it is today, we should continue as development has been done,
>educate the folks on how things are done inside of Sun, and help them be a
>part of the process.
>
>
>
There is an alternative, which is to look for an equally quality focused
process that makes accepting contributions form outside safer and
easier. I firmly believe that the agile practices I coach and use would
make this possible.
There isn't an instant fix, putting all of the test infrastructure in
place takes time and is notoriously difficult with legacy code. It can
be done for new developments, starting with test first development. I
have seen this work reasonably well with one opensource project I was
involved with (Dojo) and I can't see why it couldn't be a success with
Open Solaris. All we require is a pilot project to trial the process.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 10:59 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/02/07 12:00,:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:09 pm, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
>>Alan DuBoff wrote On 02/01/07 11:08,:
>>
>>>Let us not forget that the process we speak of is the same process that
>>>made Solaris into the great product that many of us think it is, today.
>>>It's hard to critisize a process that has turned out such a great
>>>product.
>>
>>An interesting process point in support of this: way back before we did
>>the pilot, we went around and talked to a bunch of customers, ISVs,
>>partners, etc. Whenever I spoke with engineers and managers from
>>enterprise customers about our plans to open up Solaris, they generally
>>immediately shot back with this: "We love that you are opening the
>>source, but we don't want you to toss out your development methodology
>>and all the processes that make Solaris great." Or words to that effect.
>>This came up in virtually every meeting. But, since we always planned to
>>/open/ the process, not toss it, we could easily answer this question.
>>Implementing the change is another matter, I realize, but I also see
>>that very much on the horizon. Which is cool.
>
>
> This is really the biggest double edge sword OpenSolaris has faced as a
> community. How can we get software putback, but how do we keep the high
> standards that have been put in place.
This is the challenge of open development. Alan said it earlier: we did
the open source part, but now we are starting to migrate the project to
open development and that's a bit more complex. Open source is actually
pretty easy in retrospect (though I didn't feel so at the time).
> Even the customers were telling us they like the fact that Sun does scrutinize
> and hold such a high standard. Since going open with ON, management seems to
> want things faster, get things putback faster, and do more.
I doubt things will go that much faster, to be honest. Why should they?
I mean, if a given process sucks and is improved, sure, that will make
that one bit faster. And improving efficiency is always good, and I
think that's a lot of the goal here with the new system we are putting
in place. But in general, I doubt that moving the gate external will
speed things up massively so we can take this flood of new contributions
just waiting to come in. As Rich points out, there are many other issues
that need to be considered and fixed as well. I see things growing
consistently -- even with the gate going external -- in a responsible
way based on solid engineering principles designed by the people who are
closed to this code.
> The reality is that if we want to hold the same high standard that has made
> Solaris what it is today, we should continue as development has been done,
> educate the folks on how things are done inside of Sun, and help them be a
> part of the process.
Yes. We are opening our development. Outside developers will learn from
us, and we ought to learn from them as well so that the community gels.
The request sponsor program started this education process and has
resulted in 144 code contributions to date. And a few ARC cases, too.
> As with the licensing, let's not point fingers at Sun or the Community, let's
> try to work out things the best we can and move forward.
Absolutely. You know, there's a common phrase I often here in open
source: "It will get done when it gets done." Fascinating how that
standard is not applied to Sun. I personally don't really believe in the
statement, but I've come to appreciate that some of these things
/should/ take time and I find myself apologizing for that less and less.
Again, obvious things that need fixing should be fixed and Bonnie's team
has a nifty list of everything now, so I'd expect things to come to
fruition. For my part, I'm telling everyone I meet that community
building takes time -- just as building anything of value takes time. I
think we've all learned something on this project -- both Sun engineers
as well as non-Sun engineers.
> Sun has made huge strides in what they've done, and if any of the community
> folks don't feel that way, they really are sheltered from the complete
> process of how Solaris Engineering works.
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:16 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote On 02/01/07 10:16,:
>>Joerg Schilling wrote On 02/01/07 04:27,:
>>
>>>Jim Grisanzio <Jim dot Grisanzio at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you saying we are not growing fast enough?
>>>
>>>
>>>You cannot enforce this kind of growing speed
>>>and I believe that our growing speed is just OK.
>>
>>
>>I'd like to grow a bit faster, but in general I absolutely agree with
>>your comment here. Thanks.
>
>
> All in all we may be doing the best that we can given the circumstances.
>
> Let' face the facts, a very closed process hidden behind layers of
> concrete and security is being brought open. We see piles of traffic
> from Sun folks here out in the open. Its been a long haul and yes,
> some progress has been made. Perhaps I simply expected ... more.
I think it's fine to expect more -- as long as you realize how far we've
come, how far we plan to go, and how diverse the community will grow.
Ignoring achievements is just as bad as ignoring problems. I appreciate
your recognition of our progress as well as your articulation of the
things that need fixing.
To me, one of the interesting things about the OpenSolaris project is
that the original team (pre-pilot, pre S10, long time ago) was very
small and actually had very /few/ expectations (aside from the obvious
need for tools, an open license, infrastructure, etc). We managed things
that were of immediate concern, knowing full well that the project would
emerge over time. This is a critical point many of us are forgetting.
The opening of Solaris engineering organization (code, tools, people)
and the building of the OpenSolaris community didn't happen on June 14,
2005. It just /started/ then and remains an ongoing process. Expect
more. More is coming. But it's now not only coming from Sun.
I was talking to a Sun guy in China recently on my way to a university.
He said that there would be 300 or so students at the event when we got
there. Well, there were actually 600! And it turns out that they had a
similar event a few weeks prior, but they had to "turn the buses back"
because they ran out of room for everyone. OpenSolaris will look
different in different places, but the seeds are being planted for
innovation to come from all directions. It's still /very/ early.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:52 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:38:30PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
> explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As the
> copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch - but
> this is not a unilateral executive decision.
>
> No. I read clearly. This is a call for opinion.
>
> For what purpose? To what effect ?
To influence the decision of Sun, and to influence the direction of
GPLv3.
> license also. Why? What were the reasons for not going GPL? Why are we
> now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on top of OpenSolaris?
Because GPLv3 wasn't ready two years ago.
> There are far more important issues to ask in this project :
>
> (1) why do we have source that can not be built into a runnable OS ?
>
> (2) why are key components held back ? libc_i18n.a for example
For legal encumberances... just as it has been from the beginning - and
we've never said otherwise.
> Its not a particularly fun process to watch a project for two years and see
> such tepid levels of community activity. Certainly after so much fanfare
> and hoopla.
So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough for you? What if
GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to what you're trying
to say.
> If slapping yet another legal document on top seems to help then fine. I
> would like to see the GPLv3 complete first and officers of Sun INC should
> not be discussing the issue *here* until it is a complete document. Its
Stephen Harpster's email said:
'It's now a possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception" to
the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code.'
We have the opportunity to influence GPLv3 here.
> outside of the scope of the OpenSolaris project and not our venue. I am
> more concerned with getting software that helps people into their hands.
> Its like feeding hungry people. You can stand on the sidelines talking and
> talking about world hunger or you can go out and actually feed them. I'd
> rather just get real work done please.
And we are. Keep in mind there are many faces to Sun. There are
lawyers, and there are engineers. Lawyers deal with licensing issues.
Engineers are dealing with engineering issues.
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:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:02 PM
in response to: stevel
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:38:30PM -0500, Dennis
> Clarke wrote:
> > > You seem to have misread the email. Stephen
> (Harpster)'s email is
> > explicitly asking the community to get involved in
> the discussion. As the
> > copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the
> actual license switch - but
> > this is not a unilateral executive decision.
> >
> > No. I read clearly. This is a call for opinion.
> >
> > For what purpose? To what effect ?
>
> To influence the decision of Sun, and to influence
> the direction of
> GPLv3.
>
> > license also. Why? What were the reasons for not
> going GPL? Why are we
> > now discussing GPLv3 as another license to slap on
> top of OpenSolaris?
>
> Because GPLv3 wasn't ready two years ago.
>
> > There are far more important issues to ask in
> this project :
> >
> > (1) why do we have source that can not be built
> into a runnable OS ?
> >
> > (2) why are key components held back ?
> libc_i18n.a for example
> For legal encumberances... just as it has been from
> the beginning - and
> we've never said otherwise.
I think Dennis has an important point though. Despite whatever legal encumbrances may exist, these are key problems for the project and license changes aren't going to solve them.
If anything, I think most of the folks that would be willing to join the project if it was GPLv3 would likely turn not bother if they found out that some of the most important parts aren't available at all...
> So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough
> for you? What if
> GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to
> what you're trying
> to say.
It won't do any good to "win people over" if they're missing key components. I personally don't think you can win them over without some of these key components.
> We have the opportunity to influence GPLv3 here.
That is agreeably a good thing.
> And we are. Keep in mind there are many faces to
> Sun. There are
> lawyers, and there are engineers. Lawyers deal with
> licensing issues.
> Engineers are dealing with engineering issues.
>
> cheers,
> steve
> --
> stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 |
I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The whole closed bins issue though is a real dog.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,172
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:20 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
>
> I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The whole closed bins issue though is a real dog.
>
Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements
for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This
would be a great contribution to the community.
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
barts at cyber dot eng dot sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 9:48 PM
in response to: barts
|
|
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >
>> I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great people to work with. The
>> whole closed bins issue though is a real dog.
>>
>
> Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code replacements
> for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do this. This
> would be a great contribution to the community.
>
> - Bart
I thought that Jorg Schilling had done some work in that regard. I'll have
to ask him. He fought many battles to get SchilliX 0.5.2 done.
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 5:17 PM
in response to: barts
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> >
> I think we know that. The SUN engineers are great
> people to work with. The whole closed bins issue
> though is a real dog.
>
> Yes, it's a PITA. However, anyone wishing to code
> replacements
> for such bins is _welcome_ to start a project to do
> this. This
> would be a great contribution to the community.
>
> - Bart
>
> --
> Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
> barts at cyber dot eng dot sun dot com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
One of the problems with closed bins is that they may not be well documented enough to replace with exact matching behaviour. I will admit I have not personally studied in great detail the closed bins situation. My main grip is libc_i18n. The drivers being closed isn't a big deal to me as those are definitely replaceable...
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:48 PM
in response to: stevel
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough
> for you? What if
> GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to
> what you're trying
> to say.
Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their "code" barely passing the ./configure phase between one Linux distro and another?
Is that the kind of "expertise" that Sun is hoping to attract? Did you happen to look at the lack of engineering and chaos coming from the people at the very heart of the Linux kernel? Those are the Linux elite. And they're poor coders. Also, in my belief, releasing their poorly designed (or not designed) code to the general public does not suddenly make them good coders.
Everyone with half a mind can reverse engineer a piece of hardware to make it work; I've done it as a kid a lot. But that is not what a great coder makes, it's the insights, the documentation, the engineering, the test suite, and the talent to write clean, scalable, portable, fast code, that makes a coder great.
And if anybody at Sun thinks that they will find that at Slashdot/Linux community at large, well, I guess somebody is in for a dissapointment. Not that open sourcing Solaris didn't already clearly show that. Linux fanboys that were foaming over at Slashdot are still not cranking out code using Solaris. Meanwhile, it's business as usual for Linus Torvalds & Co.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:01 PM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
UNIX admin wrote:
>>So... are you saying we're not growing fast enough
>>for you? What if
>>GPLv3 helps win more people over? I'm confusd as to
>>what you're trying
>>to say.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but what kind of people? The kind that roams Linux freely, their "code" barely passing the ./configure phase between one Linux distro and another?
>
>Is that the kind of "expertise" that Sun is hoping to attract? Did you happen to look at the lack of engineering and chaos coming from the people at the very heart of the Linux kernel? Those are the Linux elite. And they're poor coders. Also, in my belief, releasing their poorly designed (or not designed) code to the general public does not suddenly make them good coders.
>
>
>
Good point - there is huge difference between the Linux way and the
Solaris way. Solaris has built its reputation on engineering excellence
and innovation. Open Solaris must preserve that philosophy if it is to
retain it unique identity.
Maybe - because we aren't lawyers - we should look more at the
engineering philosophys behind the various license camps and ask whether
they are appropriate for Open Solaris. Then at least we would be
commenting on something we are qualified to.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
383
From:
GB
Registered:
10/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:49 AM
in response to: dclarke
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Dennis,
Hear, hear.
Ceri
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:08 PM
in response to: dclarke
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> In my opinion this feels
> like a marketing idea
> from the hallways of the same people that put "Java"
> in front of everything.
...And which was one of the worst ideas in the history of marketing.
Example: what does Java, a programming language, have to do with the "Java Desktop System", a derivate of the GNOME environment? Or, the Java Enterprise System. Is it written in Java? What does MiddleWare have to do with?
> Its the latest fad to sell the proect to the mad rush
> of people that are NOT
> joining in and NOT getting involved. The mad rush of
> people that did NOT
> arrive and proclaim the beauty and brilliance of the
> UNIX operating system.
I agree with you Dennis 100%. We are now discussing dual licensing Solaris because someone obviously believes that it is a good idea to go after the people who were foaming around their mouth on Slashdot about Sun being a deadbeat company with no vision, and how Solaris was "Slowlaris" and how Linux is superior and better and open and bla bla bla... And... GPLing Solaris will make those Linux fanboys suddenly switch to (Open)Solaris?
Perhaps we should start begging and pleading with every Linux geek out there to please, please look at Solaris? This is really starting to get out of hand.
Those people believe that GPL (v3) is the way to go because they don't know any better. And making Solaris GPL will help only as much as one publicity stunt may help some product; but it's short famed at best.
The key is to educate the target audience and raise awareness, not try to go along with whatever the latest fashion fad is; GPLing Solaris is the wrong approach to raising awareness because it falls under the "15 minutes of fame" category, and does not have a long term beneficial effect that is needed.
Those people believe that Linux is great quite simply because they don't know any better. And I believe that no amount of GPL is going to make any significant impact on making OpenSolaris better. CDDL is just fine. In fact, just about any non-commercial license would probably be OK.
Why is it that popular software gets worked on no matter what the license? Example: Apache. Hows come nobody complains about Apache not being GPL at large? Hey, I must ask, what is going on here?
If the target audience *wanted* to do something for Solaris, they would have done so -- GPL or no.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:01 PM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
UNIX admin wrote On 02/01/07 05:08,:
>>In my opinion this feels
>>like a marketing idea
>>from the hallways of the same people that put "Java"
>>in front of everything.
>
>
> ...And which was one of the worst ideas in the history of marketing.
I was on that team back then, and I don't see those guys involved in
this discussion on this list right now. If you knew the context, you may
be less critical, actually. But it's ok to disagree with any given
marketing strategy, even though that one pre-dates OpenSolaris and has
no place here at this point. Regarding marketing in general, though: We
are an open community, and marketing is as welcome in this community as
any coder is. The criticism of Sun marketing in this thread is
unfortunate because the marketing people who /are/ involved are very
much fans of OpenSolaris and advocate on behalf of the community all the
time.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 8:31 AM
in response to: jimgris
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I was on that team back then, and I don't see those
> guys involved in
> this discussion on this list right now. If you knew
> the context, you may
> be less critical, actually. But it's ok to disagree
> with any given
> marketing strategy, even though that one pre-dates
> OpenSolaris and has
> no place here at this point.
It has place here more than one might at first realize: what would GPLing Solaris be, if not an attempt at endearing Solaris to the "GPL community" (Linux folks really, let's be honest). Is that also not a form of marketing?
While GPLing Linux might have been an ideological thing, GPLing Solaris is an obvious move to win more political points with the Linux community and the press at large. And that alone is already the wrong reason, in my firmest belief.
So we want to market this thing. OK. But causing publicity stunts and trying to suck up to somebody that doesn't really want/care/like Solaris in the first place might not exactly be what you intend.
However, one other thing is also true, and that is that most of those people don't really *know* the product. For if they did, they would have long ditched the whole pointless GPL/GNU/Linux thing and switched over.
And that Jim is something that *good* marketing *can* change. Show them the good stuff Solaris already has; and the rest of us should also ditch this debate and concentrate on making Solaris even better.
"Build it and they will come."
Each one of us has certain wishes and expectations of Solaris; some of us have already started "scratching our own itches", and some are about to embark on that journey. Now, what does that remind you of, all of you? If you thought "that's how Linux got his start!", you got the gist of what I'm trying to communicate.
So let's get back to work!
Message was edited by:
ux-admin
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 8:35 AM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
>While GPLing Linux might have been an ideological thing, GPLing
>Solaris is an obvious move to win more political points with the Linux
>community and the press at large. And that alone is already th e wrong
>reason, in my firmest belief.
"Three minutes of fame followed by years of hardship"
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:35 AM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> "Three minutes of fame followed by years of hardship"
Yep. You 'got it', as usual.
And this also comes back to what I wrote about eariler: you 'got it', and were there to "pull me out of the water" even when I 'didn't get it' (I've never forgotten that new boot vs. init.d lesson on comp.unix.solaris).
I'll say that Jim is right about at least one thing, and that's that we're a unique community.
We have people that really 'get it', on more levels than one. Something our GPL/GNU friends still lack up to this present day.
Well, I've said my peace about the whole GPL-Solaris thing, so I better shut up now.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:08 AM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
UNIX admin wrote On 02/02/07 01:31,:
>>I was on that team back then, and I don't see those
>>guys involved in
>>this discussion on this list right now. If you knew
>>the context, you may
>>be less critical, actually. But it's ok to disagree
>>with any given
>>marketing strategy, even though that one pre-dates
>>OpenSolaris and has
>>no place here at this point.
>
>
> It has place here more than one might at first realize: what would GPLing Solaris be, if not an attempt at endearing Solaris to the "GPL community" (Linux folks really, let's be honest). Is that also not a form of marketing?
Well, I think Harpster is being clear that one possible advantage of a
dual approach would be to engage more developers. That's a valid
viewpoint. Other views have been expressed as well. The OpenSolaris
community is having a conversation about licensing. How is that marketing?
> While GPLing Linux might have been an ideological thing, GPLing Solaris is an obvious move to win more political points with the Linux community and the press at large. And that alone is already the wrong reason, in my firmest belief.
I do actually think the move would be popular with the press. But that
would be meaningless if it were simultaneously unpopular with
OpenSolaris developers. That's why we are having this discussion.
> So we want to market this thing. OK. But causing publicity stunts and trying to suck up to somebody that doesn't really want/care/like Solaris in the first place might not exactly be what you intend.
It's true that Sun does publicity stunts from time to time. The company
has done them from the very beginning. I don't like them, and I always
say so internally. So, thanks for not liking them, too. :) I don't have
much visibility among the executive ranks anymore since I started this
job 3 years ago, but I used to be around them a great deal and I never
had the impression that they needed to "suck up" to anyone, to be
perfectly honest. Regardless, Harpster's starting this conversation is
not a publicity stunt. He's running a large engineering project and he's
exploring licensing issues openly. Not a big deal, really. If you want
to talk about marketing, you can talk to the marketing people. They are
a nice bunch and would be happy to chat. In fact, there are many
marketing needs on OpenSolaris and so perhaps you could get involved.
> However, one other thing is also true, and that is that most of those people don't really *know* the product. For if they did, they would have long ditched the whole pointless GPL/GNU/Linux thing and switched over.
I'm not sure I agree with the "pointless GPL/GNU/Linux thing" since that
community has already demonstrated its value and success for quite some
time. In fact, we can learned a great deal from those guys. I'm
extremely impressed with what they have accomplished. And they were
actually very kind to me when I accidently flamed their main list when
OpenSolaris opened last year. (so embarrassing)
> And that Jim is something that *good* marketing *can* change. Show them the good stuff Solaris already has; and the rest of us should also ditch this debate and concentrate on making Solaris even better.
I think our marketing should focus on OpenSolaris to help build the
OpenSolaris community. That's it. No need to show any other community we
are better than they are. We're not better, by the way. We're just
different.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 7:31 AM
in response to: jimgris
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Well, I think Harpster is being clear that one
> possible advantage of a
> dual approach would be to engage more developers.
> That's a valid
> viewpoint. Other views have been expressed as well.
> The OpenSolaris
> community is having a conversation about licensing.
> How is that marketing?
Discussion isn't marketing (maybe), but GPLing Solaris to in order to *try* and win more developers over from the Linux camp would be an attempt at marketing. Because that's the idea with GPLing Solaris, isn't it?
> I think our marketing should focus on OpenSolaris to
> help build the
> OpenSolaris community. That's it. No need to show any
> other community we
> are better than they are.
I agree with you on this.
> We're not better, by the
> way. We're just
> different.
Here I strongly disagree. Perhaps I'm not better, but we most certainly have people in our community that are absolute geniuses, that know UNIX inside and out and know it good, and that have the deep insights and the expertise to be able to produce a superior product. We have the kind of ingenuity and expertise that the GNU/Linux community at large can only dream of.
The problem is, there are not very many such people. We are a comparatively small community.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 10:08 AM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
UNIX admin wrote:
>> Well, I think Harpster is being clear that one
>> possible advantage of a
>> dual approach would be to engage more developers.
>> That's a valid
>> viewpoint. Other views have been expressed as well.
>> The OpenSolaris
>> community is having a conversation about licensing.
>> How is that marketing?
>
> Discussion isn't marketing (maybe), but GPLing Solaris to in order to *try* and win more developers over from the Linux camp would be an attempt at marketing. Because that's the idea with GPLing Solaris, isn't it?
>
>> I think our marketing should focus on OpenSolaris to
>> help build the
>> OpenSolaris community. That's it. No need to show any
>> other community we
>> are better than they are.
>
> I agree with you on this.
>
>> We're not better, by the
>> way. We're just
>> different.
>
> Here I strongly disagree. Perhaps I'm not better, but we most certainly have people in our community that are absolute geniuses, that know UNIX inside and out and know it good, and that have the deep insights and the expertise to be able to produce a superior product. We have the kind of ingenuity and expertise that the GNU/Linux community at large can only dream of.
>
> The problem is, there are not very many such people. We are a comparatively small community.
Yes we are, which is why a touch of humility would be nice if we want to
focus on building our own community and not get distracted by
competitive battles and comparisons that may not make sense. We have a
great deal to do as many have pointed out. It's interesting, I've had
the opportunity to go to a few conferences lately and this issue rarely
comes up, yet interest in OpenSolaris remains high. In other words, we
don't need the competitive stuff to build community.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:41 AM
in response to: stevel
|
|
Stephen Lau <stevel at sun dot com> wrote:
> You seem to have misread the email. Stephen (Harpster)'s email is
> explicitly asking the community to get involved in the discussion. As
> the copyright holder - yes, only Sun can make the actual license switch
> - but this is not a unilateral executive decision.
If some people at Sun have the intention to do this, they should send their
arguments to allow a discussion.
Several people did already explain the problems that arise from dual licensing.
For this reason, there should be arguments that explain why it may be possible
that such a dual licensing could also have benefits.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:28 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:54 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon Valley OpenSolaris User
Group, and that makes him a community member also!<g>
> Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
> from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
> made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
> and her officers.
My gut tells me that's not the case with Rich Green, and that he really is
trying to understand the OpenSolaris community and make some rational
decisions. We haven't seen a lot of decisions yet, but we are starting to see
change inside Solaris Engineering, so things are starting to happen.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:41 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:54 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
>> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
>
> Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon Valley OpenSolaris User
> Group, and that makes him a community member also!<g>
Well hello Alan! Its nice to hear from you after all these years. You
are a bedrock foundation member of the Solaris community long before this
project ever existed and it would be nice to hear from you more often.
>
>> Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
>> from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
>> made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
>> and her officers.
>
> My gut tells me that's not the case with Rich Green, and that he really is
> trying to understand the OpenSolaris community and make some rational
> decisions. We haven't seen a lot of decisions yet, but we are starting to
> see change inside Solaris Engineering, so things are starting to happen.
Well its slow. Real real slow. So many things can be done but I
personally feel that this project is falling into corporate hands more and
more. It feels like a marketting project gone wrong.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:47 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Well its slow. Real real slow. So many things can be done but I
> personally feel that this project is falling into corporate hands more and
> more. It feels like a marketing project gone wrong.
Hi, Dennis ....
There are many people at Sun who are involved with OpenSolaris who have
been fighting to keep the project on track and growing into a genuine
community effort. We always knew that we'd grow into the role over time,
though. It's been challenging at times, since the company opened it's
core product -- a first for Sun and from which SPARC and Java have
subsequently learned -- and we've made a pile if mistakes along the way.
But this is far from a marketing project gone wrong. There are actually
very few marketing people involved, to be honest, and those who are
involved have the best interest of the community at heart. If they
don't, you will not see them here, it's that simple. Sun is a big
company with sometimes conflicting messages and initiatives, so I can
clearly see how we confuse people. We are actually pretty good at it,
but we are also getting better at aligning things, too. But if this were
a marketing project, we would not have a Charter, we would not have a
draft governance, we would not have open conversations, we would not
have infrastructure coming, we would not be moving the gate external, we
would not be taking code back, Harpster would not be openly asking for
opinions on v3, and Green wouldn't be blogging about the community's say
in any licensing discussions. Marketing isn't paying for Derek's
computers or Stephen SCM or anything else core to the engineering
project. Marketing does, however, help fund conferences, and ads, and
similar projects to help is communicate and engage new people around the
world. And that's a critical function.
I expect Sun to get more aggressive on the marketing front, especially
in emerging markets, but that's what companies do. That could help us
grow, actually, and it certainly doesn't have to negatively affect the
engineering operation here within the community. Or at the very least,
we /as a community/ get a say in the matter, and we can help influence
marketing decisions. That's not bad, is it?
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:14 PM
in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon
> Valley OpenSolaris User
> Group, and that makes him a community member also!<g>
Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris?
> We haven't seen a lot of decisions yet,
> but we are starting to see
> change inside Solaris Engineering, so things are
> starting to happen.
What kind of change?
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:19 PM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
UNIX admin wrote:
>> Actually, Rich Green has shown up at the Silicon
>> Valley OpenSolaris User
>> Group, and that makes him a community member also!<g>
>
> Who is Rich Green, and what does he have to do with GPLing Solaris?
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/bios/bios-green.html
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:20 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> Two things come to mind right away :
>
> (1) T****nly "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
>
If you follow the link, you'll see I was talking about Rich Green, Sun's
VP of Software. Sorry to confuse.....
> Is the OpenSolaris project simply a corporate extension of agenda
> from the halls of the executive level? The GPLv3 decision will be
> made NOT by this community or the CAB but by Sun Microsystems Inc.
> and her officers.
>
If the GPLv3 decision were to be made exclusively by Sun, I would not be
having this conversation with you now. We would just make it and be
done. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm talking with you first.
> Such a move would, in my mind, toss the OpenSolaris Charter and
> Governance out the window.
>
I agree, which is why I want to start this conversation now, here in the
public.
> (2) Based on my concerns expressed above would an opinion from the
> unwashed masses have any value?
>
Yes. If they didn't, I wouldn't be talking to you. It's pretty ****
easy, and certainly much faster, for me to just make a decision and then
execute on it. If that's what I wanted to do, that's what I would do.
But that's not OpenSolaris, and not what we, Sun, committed to doing
when we started all of this. We're involving you. That's why I want to
know if you think dual-licensing is a good idea or not.......
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:27 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> If the GPLv3 decision were to be made exclusively by
> Sun, I would not be
> having this conversation with you now. We would just
> make it and be
> done. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm talking
> with you first.
To be quite frank, I do not believe that any true fan of Solaris (outside of Sun) will ever be happy about GPLing their most favorite Operating Environment in the world.
Take me for example. I loved SunOS dearly in the days when it was hardcore proprietary. It did not matter to me whether it was GPL or not; I would have still used it and keep using it and deploying no matter how open source other operating systems were. I still use and make deployments of HP-UX, even though that thing will probably never be outsourced, but what do I care when I can run most of the popular software just like I can on Solaris or Linux? I don't. So what difference did it make whether HP-UX is GPLed at the end of the day? None. DNS is running on it, and running great and fast, and the OS is robust and comfortable -- and it gets the jobs done, and done well!
I read the GPL V3 draft and I find it one of the most fascist, ideology-laden licenses that I've ever read; it might be on the opposite side of the spectrum when compared with the Microsoft EULA, but both are just as bad -- because they are extremes. And no extreme can ever be any good.
Correction: the sentence should have read "I still use and make deployments of HP-UX, even though that thing will probably never be opensourced or GPLed,"
Message was edited by:
ux-admin
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:24 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
Wrong.
No disrespect to Mr. Teer, but these numbers mean more to me:
[stevel@donuthole:~] 507$ hg log -R /net/tonic-gate/builds/onnv-gate -v
| grep "Contributed.*Rich" | grep Lowe | wc -l
18
[stevel@donuthole:~] 515$ hg log -R /builds/onnv-scm --template
"{author}\n" | grep richlowe | wc -l
24
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:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:34 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
>> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
>> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
When we say Jonathan .. that means the Schwartz.
When we say Scott ... well gee. Its the big guy.
Casper is .. Casper. Simon is Simon. These are all first name people in
this community.
And Rich is .. well, he's Rich you know?
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:41 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:34:36AM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> >> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
> >> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
> >> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
> >> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
> In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
> Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
> like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
> Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
Sorry, not me. Again, no disrespect to Mr. Teer or to the CAB, but I'm
an engineer - code matters more to me. This is, after all, a community
built around the code.
(not picking a fight, I realise there are many facets to this community
- the CAB is certainly one of the more visible ones; but when I say
"Rich", I'm talking about Mr. Lowe)
anyway. silly pedantic argument. we can drop it and get back to the
GPLv3 flamefest.
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:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:55 PM
in response to: stevel
|
|
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:34:36AM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> >> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>> >> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an
>> appearance
>> >> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail
>> here.
>> >> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>
>> In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
>> Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
>> like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
>> Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
>
> Sorry, not me. Again, no disrespect to Mr. Teer or to the CAB, but I'm
> an engineer - code matters more to me. This is, after all, a community
> built around the code.
yep .. true. and no disrespect intended. It was just that I had been
talking with Rich since the 90's and .. that's all really.
> (not picking a fight, I realise there are many facets to this community
> - the CAB is certainly one of the more visible ones; but when I say
> "Rich", I'm talking about Mr. Lowe)
>
> anyway. silly pedantic argument. we can drop it and get back to the
> GPLv3 flamefest.
yep .. as big daddy Jim G. once said .. if you want a knife fight then by
all means go ahead. I'll make popcorn and watch.
a certain amount of that has gone on and I don't know what has been
achieved other than ruffled feathers.
in the middle of all this we have Apache 2.2.4 built at Blastwave and its
going for testing soonish. I got the opportunity to learn something about
the the worker MPM versus prefork and the serialization issues. At least
something cool is getting done. Oh .. and I burned a snv_56 dvd. And
made popcorn.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:31 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote On 02/01/07 14:55,:
>>On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:34:36AM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>(1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>>>>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an
>>>
>>>appearance
>>>
>>>>> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail
>>>
>>>here.
>>>
>>>>>opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>>
>>> In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
>>> Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
>>> like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
>>> Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
>>
>>Sorry, not me. Again, no disrespect to Mr. Teer or to the CAB, but I'm
>>an engineer - code matters more to me. This is, after all, a community
>>built around the code.
>
>
> yep .. true. and no disrespect intended. It was just that I had been
> talking with Rich since the 90's and .. that's all really.
>
>
>>(not picking a fight, I realise there are many facets to this community
>>- the CAB is certainly one of the more visible ones; but when I say
>>"Rich", I'm talking about Mr. Lowe)
>>
>>anyway. silly pedantic argument. we can drop it and get back to the
>>GPLv3 flamefest.
>
>
> yep .. as big daddy Jim G. once said .. if you want a knife fight then by
> all means go ahead. I'll make popcorn and watch.
I _did_ actually say that. My goodness. I forgot. :)
> a certain amount of that has gone on and I don't know what has been
> achieved other than ruffled feathers.
Yah, some of it is flame, sure, but there are some good points being
brought up as well -- on community building, on engineering, and on
licensing.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:39 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:54:48PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>> (1) The only "Rich" that has meaning in this OpenSolaris Community is
>>> Rich Teer. Mr Green, as far as I know, has never made an appearance
>>> here. So I don't know which end of the dog is wagging the tail here.
>>> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
> In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
> Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
> like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
> Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
>
> When we say Jonathan .. that means the Schwartz.
>
> When we say Scott ... well gee. Its the big guy.
>
> Casper is .. Casper. Simon is Simon. These are all first name people in
> this community.
>
> And Rich is .. well, he's Rich you know?
It's just us Alans (Coopersmith, DuBoff and Hargreaves) who screw up the
first name thing :-D
alan
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance)
Systems Technical Support Centre
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:40 AM
in response to: alanh
|
|
Alan Hargreaves wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> In this community project when someone says "Rich" they generally mean
>> Rich Teer. Or, to be more honest, *I* instantly think Rich Teer. It is
>> like, gee, let's go ask Rich and see what he thinks and then we call up
>> Rich Teer and .. well ... see what he thinks.
>>
>> When we say Jonathan .. that means the Schwartz.
>>
>> When we say Scott ... well gee. Its the big guy.
>>
>> Casper is .. Casper. Simon is Simon. These are all first name
>> people in
>> this community.
>>
>> And Rich is .. well, he's Rich you know?
>
> It's just us Alans (Coopersmith, DuBoff and Hargreaves) who screw up the
> first name thing :-D
And How could I forget Burlison too. Geez we make it hard, don't we :-D
alan.
--
Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta
Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance)
Systems Technical Support Centre
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
315
From:
US
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:02 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 19:44, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves
> what we think about GPLv3. What would it mean to the community if
> we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an
> "assembly exception" to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and
> CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities.
>
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of
> the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I
> urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
+1 from me to dual license under GPLv3, with, or without, the CDDL
assembly exception.
the only material downside that i can think of is not to dual-license.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman 'Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition'
KDE e.V. -Monty Python
stefan dot teleman at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
528
From:
CA
Registered:
12/22/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:16 PM
in response to: steleman
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
+1 from here as well.... with one caveat.
GIVE US libc_i18n.a...
if Sun cares about open-source at all, they'll hire a guy to reimpliment the *one* piece of code preventing us from making a distro that doesn't explicitly depend on Sun's engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:18 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:44 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code. This could open up a world of possibilities.
That is what I thought. Indeed. And a lot of people think it would be a
good idea.
> But what are the downsides? What does the community, you, think of the way GPLv3 is taking shape? These are important issues and I urge everyone with an opinion to voice it sooner rather than later.
Here is NexentaOS (aka GNU/OpenSolaris) visitor voting:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861
2All: please join and vote too if you'd like.
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 5:22 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested.
I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours.
The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa.
We don't need licenses to split our community, it's already small enough in comparison to other ones.
The GPLv3 alone would not be acceptable to me as the GPL isn't free enough for me. The CDDL allows BSD projects, Apple, and other entities to participate that could not practically do so otherwise.
The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:34 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
> I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested.
>
> I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours.
>
> The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa.
>
I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
> We don't need licenses to split our community, it's already small enough in comparison to other ones.
>
> The GPLv3 alone would not be acceptable to me as the GPL isn't free enough for me. The CDDL allows BSD projects, Apple, and other entities to participate that could not practically do so otherwise.
>
> The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for.
>
That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under
the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it.
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
372
From:
AR
Registered:
2/2/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:41 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at sun dot com> wrote:
>
>
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final license. At this point, I'm not particularly interested.
> >
> > I see little benefit to our community and the potential for other communities to succeed at the expense of ours.
> >
> > The problem I see with dual licensing is a situation where we end up with sub-communities that are based on the license they choose to work with; where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and vice versa.
> >
> I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
> work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
> just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
> find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
> combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
>
mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too
since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still
think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit.
nacho
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:20 PM
in response to: nacho
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On 1/30/07, Stephen Harpster
> <Stephen dot Harpster at sun dot com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final
> license. At this point, I'm not particularly
> interested.
> > >
> > > I see little benefit to our community and the
> potential for other communities to succeed at the
> expense of ours.
> > >
> > > The problem I see with dual licensing is a
> situation where we end up with sub-communities that
> are based on the license they choose to work with;
> where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community
> but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and
> vice versa.
> > >
> > I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the
> only way it could
> > work would be for all CDDL code to be
> dual-licensed. If you allowed
> > just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in,
> then you could easily
> > find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and
> then ending up with a
> > combination that wouldn't work. It's not
> practical.
> >
> mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position
> to solve it too
> since developers contributing code have to sign an
> agreement. I still
> think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real
> benefit.
>
> nacho
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
I sincerely doubt many people would consider Mozilla to have "solved it." I would venture to guess that most would agree that the triple-licensing for Mozilla has only resulted in headaches and not benefits. I certainly don't consider a triple or dual-license a solution. To me, a dual or triple license is simply an admission that the community couldn't come to agreement or didn't pick the right license to begin with. You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but if you can make most people happy...
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
173
From:
London, Canada
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:44 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
<snip>
>You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
if you can make most people happy...
And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
I for one am happy with the CDDL, and to date have read nothing which
convinces me that the GPLv3, whatever it may be, would really bring
anything good here at all.
--
Eric Enright
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:59 PM
in response to: eenright
|
|
> On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
> if you can make most people happy...
>
> And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
>
> I for one am happy with the CDDL, and to date have read nothing which
> convinces me that the GPLv3, whatever it may be, would really bring
> anything good here at all.
My gut reaction is to agree with you.
The problem is that my brain tells me not to trust my gut.
I think that this is waaay to early to have this discussion and
we should wait for the GPLv3 to be complete *and* wait a bit longer
to see the impact in the open source software world.
Then we would have much more data to base a decision on.
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
173
From:
London, Canada
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 8:15 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On 1/30/07, Dennis Clarke <dclarke at blastwave dot org> wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/07, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>You may not be able to make everyone happy with a single license, but
> > if you can make most people happy...
> >
> > And you likely couldn't make everyone happy with two.
> >
> > I for one am happy with the CDDL, and to date have read nothing which
> > convinces me that the GPLv3, whatever it may be, would really bring
> > anything good here at all.
>
> My gut reaction is to agree with you.
>
> The problem is that my brain tells me not to trust my gut.
>
> I think that this is waaay to early to have this discussion and
> we should wait for the GPLv3 to be complete *and* wait a bit longer
> to see the impact in the open source software world.
>
> Then we would have much more data to base a decision on.
This is my feeling as well. I'm not strictly against a dual-license,
but it really needs to be for a good reason and we simply can not
decide on this without all the facts.
Furthermore, it seems to me that a large part of the goal with this
idea is to increase interest with the existing GPL community. That is
all well and good (who wouldn't want more interest here??), but we
then must wait and see how they receive the GPLv3...
--
Eric Enright
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:53 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
> I think that this is waaay to early to have this discussion and
> we should wait for the GPLv3 to be complete *and* wait a bit longer
> to see the impact in the open source software world.
I agree; not only the GPLv3 is not finalize,d but the signs for uptake
in important projects are not encouraging.
I'll bet the discussion will soon turn from
"OpenSolaris is not free because it's not under the GPL"
to
"OpenSolaris is not free because it's not under the GPLv2, that
GPLv3 thing is just a marketing ploy"
I'd say, don't even consider GPLv3 for OpenSolaris until Linux uses it.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:46 PM
in response to: nacho
|
|
>mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too
>since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still
>think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit.
It only works when people actually give back code; if someone decides to
fork to a GPLv3/OpenSolaris where all work is done without requiring
changes given back under the CDDL, the OpenSolaris community would suffer
immensely.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:12 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:46 +0100, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too
> >since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still
> >think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit.
>
> It only works when people actually give back code; if someone decides to
> fork to a GPLv3/OpenSolaris where all work is done without requiring
> changes given back under the CDDL, the OpenSolaris community would suffer
> immensely.
This is something Sun could try to work out with an GPLv3 or CDDL
"assembly exception" clause....
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 7:17 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
>
>
> Shawn Walker wrote:
> > I can't commit to GPLv3 until I see the final
> license. At this point, I'm not particularly
> interested.
> >
> > I see little benefit to our community and the
> potential for other communities to succeed at the
> expense of ours.
> >
> > The problem I see with dual licensing is a
> situation where we end up with sub-communities that
> are based on the license they choose to work with;
> where the improvements happen in the GPLv3 community
> but can't be taken back to the CDDL community and
> vice versa.
> >
> I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the
> only way it could
> work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed.
> If you allowed
> ust CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in,
> then you could easily
> find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and
> then ending up with a
> combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
Right, my problem with it though is code that isn't contributed directly to the OpenSolaris project, but is a derived work. Right now, if someone posts a modification to an existing CDDL'd source file somewhere, I'm guaranteed to be able to use it in any of my CDDL'd projects, etc. under the same terms.
With a dual-license approach, someone could choose to only use and distribute modifications under their particular license of choice (of the ones that were available). As a result, a popular project could create a rift in the community where all of the work being done under the license they chose would be unusable by the other part of the community.
> > We don't need licenses to split our community, it's
> already small enough in comparison to other ones.
> >
> > The GPLv3 alone would not be acceptable to me as
> the GPL isn't free enough for me. The CDDL allows BSD
> projects, Apple, and other entities to participate
> that could not practically do so otherwise.
> >
> > The CDDL is a license much closer to the original
> BSD license that all of us I think are grateful for.
> >
> That's why a dual-license. You could continue to
> take OpenSolaris under
> the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick
> how you take it.
Dual-license to me only means that people get to pick their favorite license and work they do under it can't be used by other projects that don't pick the same one. Dual-licensing creates an artificial schism in my mind when it comes to software communities.
Time and time again I've seen this with open source projects. Someone writes great code under a liberal license (BSD, etc.), then someone else takes it, makes it part of a GPL project, and then all future modifications become GPL thus eliminating any chance for the original project to incorporate any changes.
There are cases where the contributors are kind enough to allow their modifications to be used under whatever license is desired, but I'm hesitant to rely on the goodwill of others to play fair.
Some people may not see this as a problem since contributions to the official OpenSolaris project require a contribution agreement. They would argue that if enough of the community decided to choose one of the two licenses offered and chose to go do their own thing, it would be "natural selection" of sorts.
It may be my fear of these things is irrational, and that I'm just another disillusioned software developer. Maybe tomorrow I will awake and the world will sing the praises of the one true license (whatever that may be) and this will all not matter...maybe.
> --
> Stephen Harpster
> Director, Open Source Software
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 11:44 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
>work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
>just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
>find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
>combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL
code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in.
(Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation)
>That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under
>the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it.
Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither
license can be ripped off?
We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under
the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original
authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such
dual licensing would have a strong negative impact.
(That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding
is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:40 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote On 01/31/07 16:44,:
>>I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
>>work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
>>just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
>>find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
>>combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
>
>
> I think this is an unfortunate turn of phrase; not only does all CDDL
> code needs to be dual licensed, but also all GPLv3 code allowed in.
>
> (Except when imported from other sources as mere aggregation)
>
>
>>That's why a dual-license. You could continue to take OpenSolaris under
>>the CDDL license. Dual-license means you get to pick how you take it.
>
>
>
> Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither
> license can be ripped off?
This is a key point I'd like to better understand. I know we need the
final v3 to flush out the conversation for OpenSolaris, but do we need
the final v3 to explore this specific issue generally? I've never
understood the concept of able to choose your license via a dual
licensing plan, but if both are required (can't rip one off) than
developers would have to follow both and both would be compatible, right?
Jim
> We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under
> the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original
> authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such
> dual licensing would have a strong negative impact.
>
> (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding
> is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses)
>
> Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:47 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> Is it possible to dual license code with the provision that neither
> license can be ripped off?
>
> We've seen examples of *BSD code taken over and redistributed under
> the GPL, thus preventing the changes from being used by the original
> authors. If we cannot dual license without preventing that, such
> dual licensing would have a strong negative impact.
>
> (That's why I think I will oppose the move as my current understanding
> is that dual licensing allows you to remove one of the licenses)
This is the reason why I am against dual licensing. You cannot enforce this.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:47 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> I think that would be a bad idea too. I think the only way it could
> work would be for all CDDL code to be dual-licensed. If you allowed
> just CDDL-only code in or just GPLv3-only code in, then you could easily
> find yourself having to pick and choose pieces and then ending up with a
> combination that wouldn't work. It's not practical.
This is why OpenSolaris will not be free enough anymore as Sun is only able to
enforce dual licensing to code contributed to Sun.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,674
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 12:33 PM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> The CDDL is a license much closer to the original BSD
> license that all of us I think are grateful for.
Certainly. I'm grateful that OpenSolaris wasn't GPLed, and that it uses a less extreme license (CDDL).
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 30, 2007 6:31 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
For me the issue is to try to clarify what is the OpenSolaris community. If this community is simply a project free of Sun then I think that the addition of the GPLv3 can represent a good strategy of marketing towards the free world. But if the community is instead, an independent entity I don't see the necessity to change something.At the end,we can see two ways to reach same goal (to make to grow this community): through a license (GPL) or through the independence of this community (type foundation).I prefer to think the second option.
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 3:09 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
The following is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this
but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit.
Having had to deal with the import into Solaris of several open source
projects before OpenSolaris started up and after it my opinions are
based on that. I have spent a non trivial amount of time talking with
Sun Legal about license/trademark/patent/export law and have I think an
above average (for a developer) understanding of the issues.
* Dual licensing is far to complex for developers to understand. It is
hard enough for lawyers to understand for incomming unmodified source,
never mind the problems with derived works and ongoing participation.
* I see no value in GPLv3 over CDDL only downside, particularly if is a
dual license. Especially given the "conflict" between CDDL being
"files" based and GPL being "project".
More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually
trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is
the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using
a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ?
Note that I'm NOT anti GPL I has its place. I really like what CDDL
offers and I think that it was and still is the correct choice for
OpenSolaris. It allows this community to potentially fill an area that
GPL licensed operating systems can not.
The above is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but
since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
104
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/06
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:25 AM
in response to: darrenm
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> More importantly I see no statement of what problem
> we are actually
> trying to solve by using a license other than the
> CDDL. Exactly how is
> the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really
> expect to gain by using
> a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ?
>
> --
> Darren J Moffat
> _______________________________________________
Here, here!
As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what does the OpenSolaris project hope to accomplish by changing the current license? [/b]
As the common quote goes, "Solaris isn't Linux", so why try to hide this wolf in a sheep's clothing?
What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL projects?
Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL OS...simple is often dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown, Rodrick R
rodrick.r.brown@bofa...
|
|
|
|
RE: Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 8:14 AM
in response to: wesw
|
|
-----Original Message-----
From: opensolaris-discuss-bounces at opensolaris dot org
[mailto:opensolaris-discuss-bounces at opensolaris dot org] On Behalf Of Wes
Williams
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:26 AM
To: opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: GPLv3?
>> More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually
>> trying to solve by using a license other than the
>> CDDL. Exactly how is
>> the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by
>> using a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ?
>>
>> --
>> Darren J Moffat
>> _______________________________________________
> Here, here!
> As Darren already stated, [b]what's the problem with the CDDL and what
does the OpenSolaris project hope to > > accomplish by changing the
current license? [/b]
Linux and current GPL developers are less reluctant to adopt Open
Solaris as a viable development platform because of the FUD behind the
CDDL.
> As the common quote goes, "Solaris isn't Linux", so why try to hide
this wolf in a sheep's clothing?
So Sun can attract more outside development
> What specifically is to be gained by adopting licenses with other GPL
projects?
Developers, Developers, Developers.
> Simplicity? Is that it? If that is the case, this reminds me why I
prefer Solaris to that other popular GPL > OS...simple is often dumb.
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:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:25 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
[ I stand up and applaud Darren ]
> The following is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this
> but since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit.
>
> Having had to deal with the import into Solaris of several open source
> projects before OpenSolaris started up and after it my opinions are
> based on that. I have spent a non trivial amount of time talking with
> Sun Legal about license/trademark/patent/export law and have I think an
> above average (for a developer) understanding of the issues.
>
> * Dual licensing is far to complex for developers to understand. It is
> hard enough for lawyers to understand for incomming unmodified source,
> never mind the problems with derived works and ongoing participation.
>
> * I see no value in GPLv3 over CDDL only downside, particularly if is a
> dual license. Especially given the "conflict" between CDDL being
> "files" based and GPL being "project".
>
> More importantly I see no statement of what problem we are actually
> trying to solve by using a license other than the CDDL. Exactly how is
> the CDDL not working for us ? What do we really expect to gain by using
> a GPL license as well as or instead of CDDL ?
>
> Note that I'm NOT anti GPL I has its place. I really like what CDDL
> offers and I think that it was and still is the correct choice for
> OpenSolaris. It allows this community to potentially fill an area that
> GPL licensed operating systems can not.
>
> The above is my *personal* opinion - I shouldn't have to say this but
> since I'm posting from an @Sun.COM address I'm making it explicit.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James Mansion
james@mansionfamily....
|
|
|
|
RE: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:07 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking
>ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
>mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a
>possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
>to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code.
>This could open up a world of possibilities.
What benefit would it bring?
Code can't be shared FROM linux with a dual license or an
exception - or indeed GPLv3.
There might be a benefit from making the base libc dual
licensed so that the fun and games associated with the
Nexenta distribution are not repeated, but I don't see
what extra body of code will become available to OpenSolaris
in terms of device drivers that it needs or anything else
like that.
I'd really rather Solaris DIDN'T become controlled by the
'community'. We have Linux, and *BSD with community
driven development and they both have problem fixing the
final wrinkles that are not sexy or interesting - but which
customers (rather than developers) ARE interested in.
I'm fairly sure we're capable of differentiating between
cases where ALL the source is open for scrutiny and security
audit (eg edge servers) and cases where we want the maximum
out of the hardware - particularly with workstations.
Solaris can be different primarily by being controlled by
a company which can have customer focus and engineering
clout and project management process to back up delivery.
Sure, contributions that scratch itches can be accepted, but
at the end of teh day we need a system with strong binary
interfaces that is friendly to binary vendors, be it network
or graphic or RAID drivers - and by doing so Solaris can be
more customer focussed and distance itself from all the
usual bullshit.
I really do want an alternative to Windows and MacOS/X. I
don't need A.N.Other free-as-in-freedom OS.
And ideally I'd like Sun to tune and sell hardware that flies
with Solaris, and a second vendor (Novell would have been ideal,
too bad!) to provide a software only angle on white box and
Dell/HP etc.
James
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: GPLv3?
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 3:46 AM
in response to: James Mansion
|
|
"James Mansion" <james at mansionfamily dot plus dot com> wrote:
> >I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking
> >ourselves what we think about GPLv3. What would it
> >mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a
> >possibility that we could attach an "assembly exception"
> >to the GPLv3 which would let us mix GPL and CDDL code.
> >This could open up a world of possibilities.
>
> What benefit would it bring?
>
> Code can't be shared FROM linux with a dual license or an
> exception - or indeed GPLv3.
While you cannot share code, you already may share projects.
As this (although possible) does not happen with Linux, I don't
see any benefit from dual licensing.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
