OpenSolaris Forums : [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?] ...

Home » OpenSolaris Forums » OpenSolaris » discuss

Thread: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]

Welcome, Guest

Guest Settings

Reply to this Thread

Search Forum

Back to Thread List

	Replies: 88 - Last Post: Feb 6, 2007 6:06 AM by: Joerg Schilling

Guest

[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:28 AM

[No Body]

darrenm

Posts: 3,793
From: GB

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:28 AM

in response to: Guest

Erast Benson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
>> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
>> dual licensing is trying to solve?
>
> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
>
> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> project just because of that.

Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to
OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed
or single licensed under GPLv3 ?

Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ?

If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on
either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual
CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence
only opinions about what might happen.

--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:42 AM

in response to: darrenm

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >
> > one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
> >
> > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > project just because of that.
>
> Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to
> OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed
> or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
>
> Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ?
>
> If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on
> either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual
> CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence
> only opinions about what might happen.

Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL
hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community
not acceptance of CDDL is another one.

On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:47 AM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some
> precedence where CDDL
> hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and
> Debian community
> not acceptance of CDDL is another one.
>
> On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions,
> emotions and fear.
>
> --
> Erast

The only thing that proves is that the requirements that Debian has are unreasonable. Don't even get me started on the choice of venue clause. They're more interested in protecting the user then the developer. Considering the developer is the one that spent their time, money, and resources to produce the code, they should deserve the most protection.

Besides, by your logic we already have precedent about how much good the CDDL is. Look at the various BSD, Apple, etc. projects that are using ZFS, DTrace, and so on, all because of its great licensing terms.

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:47 AM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:47 AM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:55 AM

in response to: erast

> > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> > > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > > project just because of that.
> >
> > Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute to
> > OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is dual-licensed
> > or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
> >
> > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ?
> >
> > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on
> > either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only / dual
> > CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any evidence
> > only opinions about what might happen.
>
> Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some precedence where CDDL
> hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and Debian community
> not acceptance of CDDL is another one.
>
> On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions, emotions and fear.

Then allow me to add a data point: the CDDL was a -- and perhaps the --
major reason that Apple went ahead with a DTrace port (and apparently a ZFS
port as well) to Leopard. Apple told us in no uncertain terms that
the GPL would have been a non-starter. Does that mean that a dual license
would have also been a non-starter? Hard to say -- but one can absolutely
say that (1) the CDDL was critical to Apple's adoption, and that (2) Apple's
adoption of OpenSolaris technology has been hugely validating for
OpenSolaris.

To me personally, the CDDL is a great license that accurately conveys
the zeitgiest of the OpenSolaris community. In my opinion, dual licensing
doesn't solve the problems that we do have (e.g., lowering the barriers to
non-Sun contributions), while giving us a bunch of new problems that we
_don't_ have (e.g. license-based forks that become unresolvable).

- Bryan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:13 PM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +0000, Darren J Moffat
> wrote:
> > Erast Benson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
> wrote:
> > >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
> the problem that
> > >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> > >
> > > one little problem... to become a major OSS
> community out there.
> > >
> > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are
> still a minority
> > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is
> true. Just open b56
> > > changelog and try to find how many people outside
> of Sun contributed to
> > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would
> like to increase outside
> > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just
> not possible in
> > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute
> to CDDL projects for
> > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been
> forked to be pure GPL
> > > project just because of that.
> >
> > Do you actually have proof that there are people
> who will contribute to
> > OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL
> if it is dual-licensed
> > or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
> >
> > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the
> case you site ?
> >
> > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it
> seems that nobody on
> > either side of this debate (I see at least a
> triangle: CDDL only / dual
> > CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ]
> actually has any evidence
> > only opinions about what might happen.
>
> Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some
> precedence where CDDL
> hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and
> Debian community
> not acceptance of CDDL is another one.
>
> On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions,
> emotions and fear.
>
> --
> Erast

Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions and fear." I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:14 PM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:10 PM

in response to: swalker

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +0000, Darren J Moffat
> > wrote:
> > > Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
> > wrote:
> > > >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is
> > the problem that
> > > >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> > > >
> > > > one little problem... to become a major OSS
> > community out there.
> > > >
> > > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are
> > still a minority
> > > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is
> > true. Just open b56
> > > > changelog and try to find how many people outside
> > of Sun contributed to
> > > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would
> > like to increase outside
> > > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just
> > not possible in
> > > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute
> > to CDDL projects for
> > > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been
> > forked to be pure GPL
> > > > project just because of that.
> > >
> > > Do you actually have proof that there are people
> > who will contribute to
> > > OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL
> > if it is dual-licensed
> > > or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
> > >
> > > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the
> > case you site ?
> > >
> > > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it
> > seems that nobody on
> > > either side of this debate (I see at least a
> > triangle: CDDL only / dual
> > > CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ]
> > actually has any evidence
> > > only opinions about what might happen.
> >
> > Well, on pro-GPLv3 side we at least have some
> > precedence where CDDL
> > hurts. Again most visible: cdrecord is a good one and
> > Debian community
> > not acceptance of CDDL is another one.
> >
> > On pro-CDDL side we have nothing... just opinions,
> > emotions and fear.
> >
> > --
> > Erast
>
> Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions and fear." I mean really, that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.
>
> Debian doesn't even accept some of the Free Software Foundation's licenses, so what's your answer to that?
>
> Sorry, but Debian is unreasonable in their demands in many people's opinions. Why do you think Ubuntu is succeeding where they *failed*?
>
> -Shawn
>

you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate
CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that
GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing
alone is not enough, but still will be helpful first step.

also, I'm not sure that anybody here could clearly proof me that keeping
CDDL-only OpenSolaris will help either. I tend to think that it will not
hurt us more than it did already, but at the same time I think
dual-licensing will actually improve our "outside" appearance and
attract more folks on board.

I think we need to vote.. :-)

http://www.gnusolaris.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5861

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 9:34 AM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

> you mis-read my message or i didn't explain it fully. I do appreciate
> CDDL benefits, I just trying to say there is a theory :-) that
> GPLv3/CDDL dual-license will benefit us even more. Again, dual-licensing
> alone is not enough, but still will be helpful first step.

What should be the benefit from adding a "less free" license to the code?

Could you give concrete examples what problems dual lisensing would
cure?

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

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:33 PM

in response to: swalker

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:14 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are *proof* that the CDDL provides
> benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions and fear." I mean really,
> that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.

It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base,
I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights
out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a
one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open and free.

Sun, OTOH, has taken the high road and licensed a massive amount of source
into the open source world, and that is for all to use. The fact that Apple
can even consider DTrace, ZFS, or other technologies that were put into
OpenSolaris is a statement in itself.

--

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

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:37 PM

in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:14 pm, Shawn Walker
> wrote:
> > Wrong. Apple, FreeBSD and other projects are
> *proof* that the CDDL provides
> > benefits. We do not have "just opinions, emotions
> and fear." I mean really,
> > that's just an ungrateful and untrue thing to say.
>
> It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put
> back into the source base,
> I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about
> sucking the living daylights
> out of the open source community and putting nothing
> back, it's mostly a
> one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's
> just not open and free.
>
> Sun, OTOH, has taken the high road and licensed a
> massive amount of source
> into the open source world, and that is for all to
> use. The fact that Apple
> can even consider DTrace, ZFS, or other technologies
> that were put into
> OpenSolaris is a statement in itself.
>
> --
>
> Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
> Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care
> about our company!

Well considering it's licensed under the CDDL, I think we will see it. But since none of the CDDL licensed items they've used have even shipped yet, I think it's reasonable to take a wait-and-see approach with them.

Besides, another one of the SUN folks posted earlier today about how valuable people at Apple were because of the knowledge they shared about DTrace.

You will have no disagreement with me that what SUN has done is incredible and wonderful. They have definitely done far more than any other company has, in my personal opinion, for open source.

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:39 PM

in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:40 PM

in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:12 AM

in response to: aland

>It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source base,
>I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living daylights
>out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's mostly a
>one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not open and free.

Ah, you mean Apple *steals* *free* software?

Sometimes, I have the impression that people object to this somehow;
if you can't accept other people using your work within the terms of
the opensource license you released it under, then you probably should
not be in the opensource business.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:18 AM

in response to: casper

On Thursday 01 February 2007 12:12 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >It is? When I see changes from Apple that get put back into the source
> > base, I'll believe it. As it is, Apple is good about sucking the living
> > daylights out of the open source community and putting nothing back, it's
> > mostly a one-way street. I'm not saying their way is bad, it's just not
> > open and free.
>
> Ah, you mean Apple *steals* *free* software?
>
> Sometimes, I have the impression that people object to this somehow;
> if you can't accept other people using your work within the terms of
> the opensource license you released it under, then you probably should
> not be in the opensource business.
>
> Casper

I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree that the software should allow
usage, under any circumstances. This is why I like the BSD license. Do not
license any software under the BSD license that you do not want to truely be
open and free. I have some software that I licensed under BSD because I
specifically didn't want the GPL viral effect to every be a concern. It can
be used for non-commercial and commercial use, it is free software as far as
I'm concerned. Apple is welcome to take it, even if they don't put anything
back.

But the fact that I have received patches from some of the Linux movers and
shakers is a statement in itself.

If you love something, let it go, and if it loves you it will come back.

--

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

harpster

Posts: 147
From: Menlo Park, CA

Registered: 5/2/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 1:31 PM

in response to: darrenm

No, but then again, you don't have any proof on the reverse case.

The fact is that you really won't know until we do it, or don't do it,
and then see what happens. And it makes it really hard to make an
educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license.

But we can make somewhat an educated guess now based on what we do
know. And we can always revise it as we obtain more data.....

Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
>>> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
>>> dual licensing is trying to solve?
>>
>> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
>>
>> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
>> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
>> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
>> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
>> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
>> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
>> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
>> project just because of that.
>
> Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute
> to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is
> dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
>
> Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ?
>
> If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on
> either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only /
> dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any
> evidence only opinions about what might happen.
>

--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:31 PM

in response to: harpster

But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
failure proofs?

Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?

And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least
we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could
be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough
hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing?

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 13:31 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> No, but then again, you don't have any proof on the reverse case.
>
> The fact is that you really won't know until we do it, or don't do it,
> and then see what happens. And it makes it really hard to make an
> educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license.
>
> But we can make somewhat an educated guess now based on what we do
> know. And we can always revise it as we obtain more data.....
>
>
>
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
> > Erast Benson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> >>> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> >>> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >>
> >> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
> >>
> >> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> >> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> >> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> >> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> >> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> >> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> >> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> >> project just because of that.
> >
> > Do you actually have proof that there are people who will contribute
> > to OpenSolaris code that is currently under the CDDL if it is
> > dual-licensed or single licensed under GPLv3 ?
> >
> > Or is this assumption based on the behaviour of the case you site ?
> >
> > If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems that nobody on
> > either side of this debate (I see at least a triangle: CDDL only /
> > dual CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ] actually has any
> > evidence only opinions about what might happen.
> >
>
--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:48 PM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

> But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> failure proofs?

It is only a proof for the fact that Debian is no longer a free project anymore
and that some people in Debian ignore their own rules (the DFSG).

Why do you publish this claim at all? You know that there is no license issue
and that nobody from Debian was able to verify the "license issue" claim.
The real reason (some people don't like to cooperate) is not based on license
issues but on personal agressions.

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

alanbur

Posts: 1,218
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:11 PM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote:

> But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> failure proofs?

No, because cdrecord isn't OpenSolaris, and I don't believe in looking
to external communities for validation of what *our* community is doing.
Both the BSD and Apple folks seem to be able to work with us, which
suggests the problem is neither us nor the CDDL.

> Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
> considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
> outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?

No, because I don't agree with your premise that there has been "almost
zero participation". For example, the volume & heat on this alias today
reminds me of the heady days of perl5-porters - well known in the past
for being the abode of Those With Asbestos Undergarments ;-) Just
because we are a still relatively small community, it doesn't make us a
*dead* community.

> And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least
> we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could
> be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough
> hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing?

No, because their primary beef is Linux versus Solaris, *not* GPL versus
CDDL. If they weren't beating us with the license stick, they be using
something else instead. Trying to satisfy the Linux community is
wrong-headed, the only community that's we need to satisfy is *our*
community.

--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:19 PM

in response to: alanbur

Alan Burlison <Alan dot Burlison at sun dot com> wrote:

> Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> > projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> > failure proofs?
>
> No, because cdrecord isn't OpenSolaris, and I don't believe in looking
> to external communities for validation of what *our* community is doing.
> Both the BSD and Apple folks seem to be able to work with us, which
> suggests the problem is neither us nor the CDDL.

I received congratulations from all *BSD flavors after I did change the license
to CDDL. Cdrtools under CDDL is accepted by all communities except Linux.
It is a political issue but not a license issue and changing the license back
to GPL would not help against those people who do nt like to cooperate.

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

jimgris

Posts: 3,835
From: JP

Registered: 4/6/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 8:19 PM

in response to: alanbur

Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 09:11,:
> Erast Benson wrote:

>> Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
>> considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
>> outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?

Considered a "minority community" by who? And based on what timeframe
and measurement mechanism? Sorry, I don't agree with this line of
thinking at all because it's pejorative. We are young, we are building,
and we are growing. And this is not a problem, no.

Is there something wrong with my kid because she can't speak in fluent
English and Japanese sentences yet after almost 21 months (though she
does understand many of them)? Or is she just where she is because
that's life and she'll grow into her new roles over time? I used to
build houses, and I know from painful experience that foundations are
important. The concrete mix is important, too. And footings even more
important. And the ground supporting the footing even more important
than that. Get these core things wrong and you building sinks or falls
over if you can even build it at all. We are building our community from
the ground up. If we want it to last, it will take time. It's just that
simple. That's one of the qualities of this project, actually.

> No, because I don't agree with your premise that there has been "almost
> zero participation". For example, the volume & heat on this alias today
> reminds me of the heady days of perl5-porters - well known in the past
> for being the abode of Those With Asbestos Undergarments ;-) Just
> because we are a still relatively small community, it doesn't make us a
> *dead* community.

I agree. You know, we were criticized greatly before we launched and
before there was a real community to point to, but since then the
criticisms of the OpenSolaris community have really been quite minor.
The code speaks for itself, and the community is growing to the point
where people are *very* much noticing what's going on.

Jim

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:15 PM

in response to: jimgris

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:19 +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
> Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 09:11,:
> > Erast Benson wrote:
>
>
> >> Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
> >> considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
> >> outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?
>
>
> Considered a "minority community" by who? And based on what timeframe
> and measurement mechanism? Sorry, I don't agree with this line of
> thinking at all because it's pejorative. We are young, we are building,
> and we are growing.

I will have to agree with you and stay corrected here. Indeed it is hard
to measure growing speed. We are growing, but I *think* we could achieve
better speed if a) we change license, b) we will simplify contribution
and c) we will fix closed bins issue.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:11 PM

in response to: alanbur

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:11 +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
> > considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
> > outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?
>
> No, because I don't agree with your premise that there has been "almost
> zero participation". For example, the volume & heat on this alias today
> reminds me of the heady days of perl5-porters - well known in the past
> for being the abode of Those With Asbestos Undergarments ;-) Just
> because we are a still relatively small community, it doesn't make us a
> *dead* community.

I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
participation from outside of Sun which is what currently our relative
numbers are by looking at ON consolidation. And yes, we are growing, but
not fast enough to me...

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

alanbur

Posts: 1,218
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 1:00 AM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote:

> I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
> participation from outside of Sun which is what currently our relative
> numbers are by looking at ON consolidation. And yes, we are growing, but
> not fast enough to me...

Sun's had a 20+ year head start in terms of getting people to contribute
to Solaris, I think we should be prepared to cut the external folks some
slack ;-)

And shouldn't the *community* be responsible for figuring out how to
grow itself? I see lots of comments about how if only SUNW did this
thing or that thing the community would grow. Why is it SUNW's
responsibility, shouldn't the OpenSolaris community be thinking of ways
to grow itself?

I would also comment that the people I've seen join the community are a
pretty impressive bunch - people who care and are trying to make a
significant contribution. There just isn't a huge pool of
People-Who-Can-Hack-On-An-OS out there for us to draw on. Sure there is
a load of other ways people can contribute, but at the moment the
barrier to participation is not insignificant. As has been said before,
that's something that we are trying to change, and yes it's taking
longer than any of us would really like.

--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

rich

Posts: 1,091
From: CA

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 9:25 AM

in response to: erast

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:

> numbers are by looking at ON consolidation. And yes, we are growing, but
> not fast enough to me...

I'd like us to grow faster too, but at the end of the day, these
things happen at their own pace. If we adopt GPLv3, has the Open
Solaris community grown, or been subsumed by the GPL one?

--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

plocher

Posts: 1,495
From:

Registered: 5/18/05

Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 9:55 AM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote:
> I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
> participation from outside of Sun

What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
future, more than 25% of the contributions will come from
outside of Sun? >50%? >75%? 100%?

This community is intended to be inclusive of both Sun and non-Sun
engineers; in my mind, it would be a disaster to have an OpenSolaris
community where there was little or no Sun engineering presence.
That would turn OpenSolaris into one of those worthless "toss it
over the wall and see if it survives" debacles.

My expectations are pretty modest:

I don't expect individual contributers to take on huge projects,
though there will always be exceptional people who do the
impossible - and make it look easy!

I expect lots of people (inside and outside of Sun) to take on
and be successful at simple things - bugfixes, low hanging
fruit, etc.

Being pragmatic, I believe that it takes a long term commitment
(meaning money and people) to do non-trivial projects, and as such,
implies corporate backing - Sun's or Apple's or ....

All open source efforts stratify into tiers: Core leaders, Core
"doers", Peripheral "doers", Talkers and Watchers. OpenSolaris
is no different.

I expect that this will show itself in the beginning as

Most community members will be content to sit back and watch
Some will be vocal and want to be heard on the various mailing lists
A few will get involved with the code
Fewer still will actually submit bugfixes and simple RFEs
A relative handful will get involved, start taking charge, make waves, etc
A dozen or less will succeed and become leaders.

This isn't "just" an OpenSolaris viewpoint; it holds true for all the other
open source efforts I am or have been involved with as well.

-John

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

mac

Posts: 268
From: US

Registered: 5/25/05

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 10:32 AM

in response to: plocher

Well said John. This is my expectation as well.

-- mark

John Plocher wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
>> I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
>> participation from outside of Sun
>
>
> What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
> future, more than 25% of the contributions will come from
> outside of Sun? >50%? >75%? 100%?
>
> This community is intended to be inclusive of both Sun and non-Sun
> engineers; in my mind, it would be a disaster to have an OpenSolaris
> community where there was little or no Sun engineering presence.
> That would turn OpenSolaris into one of those worthless "toss it
> over the wall and see if it survives" debacles.
>
> My expectations are pretty modest:
>
> I don't expect individual contributers to take on huge projects,
> though there will always be exceptional people who do the
> impossible - and make it look easy!
>
> I expect lots of people (inside and outside of Sun) to take on
> and be successful at simple things - bugfixes, low hanging
> fruit, etc.
>
> Being pragmatic, I believe that it takes a long term commitment
> (meaning money and people) to do non-trivial projects, and as such,
> implies corporate backing - Sun's or Apple's or ....
>
> All open source efforts stratify into tiers: Core leaders, Core
> "doers", Peripheral "doers", Talkers and Watchers. OpenSolaris
> is no different.
>
> I expect that this will show itself in the beginning as
>
> Most community members will be content to sit back and watch
> Some will be vocal and want to be heard on the various mailing lists
> A few will get involved with the code
> Fewer still will actually submit bugfixes and simple RFEs
> A relative handful will get involved, start taking charge, make
> waves, etc
> A dozen or less will succeed and become leaders.
>
> This isn't "just" an OpenSolaris viewpoint; it holds true for all the
> other
> open source efforts I am or have been involved with as well.
>
> -John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 10:51 AM

in response to: plocher

OK. I'll buy it.

Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?

Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How many
subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may
be?

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 09:55 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
> > participation from outside of Sun
>
>
> What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
> future, more than 25% of the contributions will come from
> outside of Sun? >50%? >75%? 100%?
>
> This community is intended to be inclusive of both Sun and non-Sun
> engineers; in my mind, it would be a disaster to have an OpenSolaris
> community where there was little or no Sun engineering presence.
> That would turn OpenSolaris into one of those worthless "toss it
> over the wall and see if it survives" debacles.
>
> My expectations are pretty modest:
>
> I don't expect individual contributers to take on huge projects,
> though there will always be exceptional people who do the
> impossible - and make it look easy!
>
> I expect lots of people (inside and outside of Sun) to take on
> and be successful at simple things - bugfixes, low hanging
> fruit, etc.
>
> Being pragmatic, I believe that it takes a long term commitment
> (meaning money and people) to do non-trivial projects, and as such,
> implies corporate backing - Sun's or Apple's or ....
>
> All open source efforts stratify into tiers: Core leaders, Core
> "doers", Peripheral "doers", Talkers and Watchers. OpenSolaris
> is no different.
>
> I expect that this will show itself in the beginning as
>
> Most community members will be content to sit back and watch
> Some will be vocal and want to be heard on the various mailing lists
> A few will get involved with the code
> Fewer still will actually submit bugfixes and simple RFEs
> A relative handful will get involved, start taking charge, make waves, etc
> A dozen or less will succeed and become leaders.
>
> This isn't "just" an OpenSolaris viewpoint; it holds true for all the other
> open source efforts I am or have been involved with as well.
>
> -John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

ptribble

Posts: 1,575
From: GB

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:28 AM

in response to: erast

On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

OK. I'll buy it.

Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?

Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How many
subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may
be?

There are some metrics:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/metrics/latest/

--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:49 PM

in response to: ptribble

unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +0000, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:
> OK. I'll buy it.
>
> Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
> fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such
> numbers, could
> somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6
> months?
>
> Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How
> many
> subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of
> downloads may
> be?
>
> There are some metrics:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/metrics/latest/
>
> --
> -Peter Tribble
> http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

James C. McPher...
James.McPherson@Sun....

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:57 PM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote:
> unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
> but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
> to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +0000, Peter Tribble wrote:
>> On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:
>> OK. I'll buy it.
>>
>> Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
>> fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such
>> numbers, could
>> somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6
>> months?
>>
>> Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How
>> many
>> subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of
>> downloads may
>> be?
>> There are some metrics:
>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/metrics/latest/

Hi Erast,
I *really* do not understand why you appear to be so concerned
about how large or extensive the OpenSolaris community actually
is.

Yes, the number of those who would call themselves part of the
OpenSolaris community is probably not as large as Linux-adherents,
but who really cares? Why does it matter?

Having numbers just for sake of a "mine is larger than yours"
style competition is a distraction from the real effort of
making OpenSolaris better.

James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

jimgris

Posts: 3,835
From: JP

Registered: 4/6/05

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:10 PM

in response to: ptribble

Peter Tribble wrote On 02/02/07 04:28,:
> On 2/1/07, *Erast Benson* <erast at gnusolaris dot org
> <mailto:erast at gnusolaris dot org>> wrote:
>
> OK. I'll buy it.
>
> Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
> fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
> somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?
>
> Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How many
> subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may
> be?
>
>
> There are some metrics:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/marketing/metrics/latest/

yes, this is the fine work of Patrick Finch.

Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

jimgris

Posts: 3,835
From: JP

Registered: 4/6/05

Re: Community participation (was GPLv3 ravings)
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:05 PM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote On 02/02/07 03:51,:
> OK. I'll buy it.
>
> Than based on what we can claim that our community is indeed
> fast-growing, what numbers we should use? If we have such numbers, could
> somebody provide a comparative statistics during past 6 months?

Oh, I don't think we're growing fast. :) I just thing we're growing,
that's all. We track all sorts of metrics around here: code, bugs,
conferences, website hits, forum hits, registrations, emails, threads,
geo growth, downloads, user groups, etc.

Jim

> Could it be over-all number of users on mailing lists? How many
> subscribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may
> be?
>
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 09:55 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
>
>>Erast Benson wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
>>>participation from outside of Sun
>>
>>
>>What are your expectations here? That at some point in the
>>future, more than 25% of the contributions will come from
>>outside of Sun? >50%? >75%? 100%?
>>
>>This community is intended to be inclusive of both Sun and non-Sun
>>engineers; in my mind, it would be a disaster to have an OpenSolaris
>>community where there was little or no Sun engineering presence.
>>That would turn OpenSolaris into one of those worthless "toss it
>>over the wall and see if it survives" debacles.
>>
>>My expectations are pretty modest:
>>
>> I don't expect individual contributers to take on huge projects,
>> though there will always be exceptional people who do the
>> impossible - and make it look easy!
>>
>> I expect lots of people (inside and outside of Sun) to take on
>> and be successful at simple things - bugfixes, low hanging
>> fruit, etc.
>>
>> Being pragmatic, I believe that it takes a long term commitment
>> (meaning money and people) to do non-trivial projects, and as such,
>> implies corporate backing - Sun's or Apple's or ....
>>
>> All open source efforts stratify into tiers: Core leaders, Core
>> "doers", Peripheral "doers", Talkers and Watchers. OpenSolaris
>> is no different.
>>
>>I expect that this will show itself in the beginning as
>>
>> Most community members will be content to sit back and watch
>> Some will be vocal and want to be heard on the various mailing lists
>> A few will get involved with the code
>> Fewer still will actually submit bugfixes and simple RFEs
>> A relative handful will get involved, start taking charge, make waves, etc
>> A dozen or less will succeed and become leaders.
>>
>>This isn't "just" an OpenSolaris viewpoint; it holds true for all the other
>>open source efforts I am or have been involved with as well.
>>
>> -John
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>>opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:58 PM

in response to: alanbur

>No, because their primary beef is Linux versus Solaris, *not* GPL versus
>CDDL. If they weren't beating us with the license stick, they be using
>something else instead. Trying to satisfy the Linux community is
>wrong-headed, the only community that's we need to satisfy is *our*
>community.

Hear, hear.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:14 AM

in response to: casper

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 11:58 pm, Casper.***@sun.com wrote:
> >No, because their primary beef is Linux versus Solaris, *not* GPL versus
> >CDDL. If they weren't beating us with the license stick, they be using
> >something else instead. Trying to satisfy the Linux community is
> >wrong-headed, the only community that's we need to satisfy is *our*
> >community.
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Casper

Satisfying and existing are two completely different things, and unfortunately
we must exist with them, Linux will not go away any time soon.

Oh, we don't need to co-exist if we don't want to use any of the Linux based
projects, which are the majority of open source projects today (or at least
in some way relate and/or port first on Linux).

--

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

plocher

Posts: 1,495
From:

Registered: 5/18/05

Fortune cookies and community building (was Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 3:39 PM

in response to: aland

>>> Trying to satisfy the Linux community is wrong-headed, the only
>>> community that's we need to satisfy is *our* community.

> Satisfying and existing are two completely different things, and unfortunately
> we must exist with them, Linux will not go away any time soon.
>
> Oh, we don't need to co-exist if we don't want to use any of the Linux based
> projects...

My fortune cookie at lunch today said

"Be willing to apologize and the world will become smaller"

This got me thinking about this thread, and what is really being
said, behind all the words and between all the lines. What I'm
hearing bothers me:

"We are better than they are"
"We don't need them"
"How would that help *us*?"
"What if they did something we didn't like?"
"...bigot..." "...jerk..." "... @^^& @^%$^&$%@^&$#..."

My, how the world is getting bigger - we all are squaring off
into our own isolated camps, building up barriers that will
be impossible to break down, and in the process, moving
all of us farther apart. This is not good.

We need to mend these fences and pull ourselves back together
again as a community. Even those of us live in the Linux
or Apple or GNU worlds.

Peace,
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:34 PM

in response to: erast

>But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
>projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
>failure proofs?

No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
fork a GNU only version.

The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
interesting.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:42 PM

in response to: casper

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:34 +0100, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> >projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> >failure proofs?
>
> No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
> fork a GNU only version.

whatever it proves, it wasn't a good experience...
And if I'm not mistaken Joerg refused to dual-license cdrecord.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 10:44 AM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:34 +0100, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> > >But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> > >projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> > >failure proofs?
> >
> > No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
> > fork a GNU only version.
>
> whatever it proves, it wasn't a good experience...
> And if I'm not mistaken Joerg refused to dual-license cdrecord.

For good reason... There is no license problem with cdrtools and
there is no problem that could be solved with dual licensing.

Even in case I did go back to GPL only, the real problem (some non-cooperative
people in Debian) could not be solved.

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

error404

Posts: 528
From: CA

Registered: 12/22/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:57 PM

in response to: casper

On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:

>
> The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
> interesting.

Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
community... glad we got that cleared up...

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:43 AM

in response to: error404

>
>On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>>
>> The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
>> interesting.
>
>Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
>we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
>community... glad we got that cleared up...
>

If you have nothing sensible to add, then shut up.

Taken in context, I stand by that statement.

Or did you find any well-reasoned, analytic anti CDDL statements
anywhere? (Backed by legal opion, not the "I can read therefor I
can read legalese" crowd)

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 10:51 AM

in response to: error404

John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail dot com> wrote:

>
> On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >
> > The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
> > interesting.
>
> Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
> we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
> community... glad we got that cleared up...

I am not sure about what's your point is...

I cannot see any insult from Casper. If you dislike insults, you would
need to talk to the bigots who already attack the CDDL and CDDL based
projects.

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

error404

Posts: 528
From: CA

Registered: 12/22/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:05 AM

in response to: Joerg Schilling

On 1-Feb-07, at 10:51 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail dot com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
>>> interesting.
>>
>> Good thing that people who disagree with you are insulted, otherwise
>> we might get the impression that OpenSolaris is a welcoming
>> community... glad we got that cleared up...
>
> I am not sure about what's your point is...
>
> I cannot see any insult from Casper. If you dislike insults, you would
> need to talk to the bigots who already attack the CDDL and CDDL based
> projects.

Of course you can't see my point, you're a GPL bigot & a fascist.

See? It's not nice to insult people.

My point is just that when we're attempting a rational discourse,
lowering yourself to ad hominem causes you to lose credibility, not
gain it. I support the GPL, I think it's good for the authors, in as
far as one's work isn't picked up & locked away in something closed
source against the authors' will.

And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're
guilty of it, Casper's guilty of it.

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:23 AM

in response to: error404

>And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
>community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
>That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
>are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're
>guilty of it, Casper's guilty of it.

You can't take a statement directed at a group of people to be
specifically aimed at you.

If you believe your arguments are well reasoned, then clearly they
were not aimed at you.

But then you (or someone else) quoted some political propaganda
from the FSF; these people are clearly biased against most licenses
as they have a political agenda; their arguments don't stand up to
scrutiny.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

carlsonj

Posts: 6,810
From: US

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:45 AM

in response to: casper

Casper.***@Sun.COM writes:
>
> >And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
> >community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
> >That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
> >are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're
> >guilty of it, Casper's guilty of it.
>
> You can't take a statement directed at a group of people to be
> specifically aimed at you.

Not only that, but I could have sworn that Casper's statement was
about those spreading anti-CDDL FUD, not about those who like GPL.

As for the latter, I happen to like (and use) GPLv2. I think it's a
useful license and (apparently unlike others posting here) I don't
feel that its political implications are necessarily a bad thing.

I just don't let that color my view of other licenses. It doesn't
seem necessary to grasp at one, and declare all others to be
worthless, which is essentially what the FSF's position statements
have done. It's a silly, defensive, round-the-wagons approach.

--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 1:10 PM

in response to: carlsonj

James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at Sun dot COM> wrote:

> Casper.***@Sun.COM writes:
> >
> > >And now I'm told by Casper, someone who's supposed to represent the
> > >community (hint: I'm part of the community) that I'm a bigot for it?!
> > >That's just insane. You can disagree with me, you can say my ideas
> > >are worthless, but insulting me as a person is unacceptable. You're
> > >guilty of it, Casper's guilty of it.
> >
> > You can't take a statement directed at a group of people to be
> > specifically aimed at you.
>
> Not only that, but I could have sworn that Casper's statement was
> about those spreading anti-CDDL FUD, not about those who like GPL.

Mr. Sonnenschein does not seem to understand what's a GPL bigot as
he did call me a GPL bigot.

> As for the latter, I happen to like (and use) GPLv2. I think it's a
> useful license and (apparently unlike others posting here) I don't
> feel that its political implications are necessarily a bad thing.

The GPL is not bad by definition, the GPL has some bad smell since
some GPL bigots act on it.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:07 AM

in response to: casper

--- Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:

>
> >But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> >projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a
> CDDL
> >failure proofs?
>
> No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
> fork a GNU only version.
>
> The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
> interesting.

Casper,

from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about CDDL:

This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So,
a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this
reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual
property".

Their rationale is explained.

I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling
people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the
term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to
civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest
"strong-willed". Thanks in advance.

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:52 AM

in response to: Christopher Mahan

>from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about CDDL:
>
> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
>it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
>GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
>while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
>terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So,
>a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
>legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this
>reason.

> Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual
>property".
>
>Their rationale is explained.

>I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling
>people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the
>term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to
>civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest
>"strong-willed". Thanks in advance.

Well, if you compare this with their statement on the Apache
license:

This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL
because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL:
it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not
require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are
inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible
with the GNU GPL.)

If you look at other licenses, I think the strong wording in the
case of the CDDL shows a bias.

(Note the absense of linking in the Apache case; it is used in certain
other cases; the GPL, of course, does not refer to linking nor is
such a thing well-defined)

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

harpster

Posts: 147
From: Menlo Park, CA

Registered: 5/2/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 11:28 AM

in response to: Christopher Mahan

My apologies. I meant no offense.

Christopher Mahan wrote:
> --- Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>
>>> But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
>>> projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a
>>>
>> CDDL
>>
>>> failure proofs?
>>>
>> No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
>> fork a GNU only version.
>>
>> The anti CDDL statements are statements of bigots and as such not
>> interesting.
>>
>
> Casper,
>
> from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/, about CDDL:
>
> This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft;
> it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
> GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained,
> while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it
> terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So,
> a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
> legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this
> reason.
>
> Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual
> property".
>
> Their rationale is explained.
>
> I would personally prefer if you were able to refrain from calling
> people like myself who use and advocate Debian as "bigots" as the
> term bears negative connotations and is not entirely conducive to
> civil and measured discussion. As an alternative, I suggest
> "strong-willed". Thanks in advance.
>
> Chris Mahan
> 818.943.1850 cell
> chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
> chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________ _____
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
>

--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

axposf

Posts: 101
From: IT

Registered: 9/21/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:17 PM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?

In my opinion,yes

And if we go to dual-license with GPLv3, isn't we all know that at least
we will be blessed by FSF/GNU and others GPLv3 supporters (which could
be easily 50% of GNU/Linux community)? Isn't this will give us enough
hopes that dual-licensing will be a good thing?

Are you sure that the solution is to add a new license?

Ok,Its could be right,but is there only one solution,and this solution?

Could be some other problems before CDDL?

I think,it's very difficult to promote a free community tied up with a corporation.I don't know if its could be everybody thinking but I've a suspect that every outside ask as prerequirements free,open and independence.So,are these defects of CDDL license? In my opinion,no.

Giacomo

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:58 PM

in response to: darrenm
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> If there is proof I'd love to see it because it seems
> that nobody on
> either side of this debate (I see at least a
> triangle: CDDL only / dual
> CDDL and GPLv3 / GPLv3 only) [ me included!! ]
> actually has any evidence
> only opinions about what might happen.
>
> --
> Darren J Moffat
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>

Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it either despite compatibility of the licenses.

The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean squat.

-Shawn

alanbur

Posts: 1,218
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 1:02 AM

in response to: swalker

Shawn Walker wrote:

> Exactly. I don't see hordes of people flocking to develop for GNU Hurd despite it's GPL license. I also don't see tons of Linux drivers available for it either despite compatibility of the licenses.
>
> The GNU Hurd project is proof enough that a license alone doesn't mean squat.

+1

--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

darrenm

Posts: 3,793
From: GB

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:38 AM

in response to: Guest

Erast Benson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
>> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
>> dual licensing is trying to solve?
>
> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
>
> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside

Which changelog ?

Are you looking at all consolidations or just ON ? ON I'm told only
makes up about 20% of Sun's Solaris product and probably even less of a
distro like Nextana I suspect.

I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not
personally convinced that a license change is what will change that
because I don't think the license is what that problem is.

--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:46 AM

in response to: darrenm

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:38 +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >
> > one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
> >
> > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
>
> Which changelog ?
>
> Are you looking at all consolidations or just ON ? ON I'm told only
> makes up about 20% of Sun's Solaris product and probably even less of a
> distro like Nextana I suspect.

No matter how you count, I don't think you will see significant numbers.
My guess it will be less than 0.1% overall. But, would be nice to count
real number.

> I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not
> personally convinced that a license change is what will change that
> because I don't think the license is what that problem is.

Right. Re-licensing alone would be just a first step to resolve this
problem. There are many other micro-steps we need to do. Like get rid
off closed bins, most serious next step to do.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:53 AM

in response to: erast

>No matter how you count, I don't think you will see significant numbers.
>My guess it will be less than 0.1% overall. But, would be nice to count
>real number.

Sure, but the mechanisms are not in place to do this. And we don't
expect anyone to have commit access for some time....

>> I take your point though it would be great to have more, I'm just not
>> personally convinced that a license change is what will change that
>> because I don't think the license is what that problem is.
>
>Right. Re-licensing alone would be just a first step to resolve this
>problem. There are many other micro-steps we need to do. Like get rid
>off closed bins, most serious next step to do.

Proof by assertion. Sorry, I am not convinced.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

rich

Posts: 1,091
From: CA

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:42 AM

in response to: Guest

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:

> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> project just because of that.

I submit that the license is not why there are fewer external contributions
than we'd like. I think it's because it's an onerous process at the moment,
and perhaps because people might be wary of signing a Contributor Agreememnt.

If anything, I think people are "afraid" to contribute to non-Sun CDDLed
projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL factions. I remember
some assertions that said words to the effect of "ownership of any CDDLed
code reverts to Sun", when that is patently not the case.

--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:53 AM

in response to: rich

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > project just because of that.
>
> I submit that the license is not why there are fewer external contributions
> than we'd like. I think it's because it's an onerous process at the moment,
> and perhaps because people might be wary of signing a Contributor Agreememnt.

I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.

> If anything, I think people are "afraid" to contribute to non-Sun CDDLed
> projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL factions. I remember
> some assertions that said words to the effect of "ownership of any CDDLed
> code reverts to Sun", when that is patently not the case.

and we don't want to constantly fight against this FUD...

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

alanc

Posts: 5,504
From: US

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:32 AM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson wrote:
> I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
> dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.

But if we get rid of the Contributor Agreement we lose the mechanism
that lets us change from CDDL to dual-licensed - you can't have it both ways!

(And even the FSF requires similar agreement to contribute to GNU software,
so I don't see why it should be a major issue.)

--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:20 PM

in response to: alanc

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
> > dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> > Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.
>
> But if we get rid of the Contributor Agreement we lose the mechanism
> that lets us change from CDDL to dual-licensed - you can't have it both ways!

well, use it wisely... at least we do have one shot.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

rich

Posts: 1,091
From: CA

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:34 AM

in response to: erast

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:

> I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
> dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.

1 isn't necessary IMO, 2 also (perhaps), 3 definately.

> and we don't want to constantly fight against this FUD...

Agreed, but not by rolling over and giving up. The only way to fight
FUD is by education. The more people are educated in the truth, the
less chance FUD has to spread. Sounds like a job for FUD Fighters!
[Oh, wait. That idea was canned. :-(]

--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:22 PM

in response to: rich
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us
> entirely but will help
> > dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1)
> Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> > Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.
>
> 1 isn't necessary IMO, 2 also (perhaps), 3
> definately.

1) agreed, 2) not agreed, I think we need the protection 3) at least all the non-driver components.

> > and we don't want to constantly fight against this
> FUD...
>
> Agreed, but not by rolling over and giving up. The
> only way to fight
> FUD is by education. The more people are educated in
> the truth, the
> less chance FUD has to spread. Sounds like a job for
> FUD Fighters!
> [Oh, wait. That idea was canned. :-(]
>
> --
> Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

Hear, Hear!

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:16 PM

in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
> >
> > > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would
> like to increase outside
> > > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just
> not possible in
> > > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute
> to CDDL projects for
> > > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been
> forked to be pure GPL
> > > project just because of that.
> >
> > I submit that the license is not why there are
> fewer external contributions
> > than we'd like. I think it's because it's an
> onerous process at the moment,
> > and perhaps because people might be wary of signing
> a Contributor Agreememnt.
>
> I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely
> but will help
> dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1)
> Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of closed bins.

The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.

> > If anything, I think people are "afraid" to
> contribute to non-Sun CDDLed
> > projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL
> factions. I remember
> > some assertions that said words to the effect of
> "ownership of any CDDLed
> > code reverts to Sun", when that is patently not the
> case.
>
> and we don't want to constantly fight against this
> FUD...
>
> --
> Erast

Sorry, but rolling over and giving up seems like the lame way out of this. Not only that, it is not an option for me personally.

-Shawn

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:45 PM

in response to: swalker

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
> The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good
> sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.

IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't
need to have a contributor agreement signed...???

It's not hard to realize that the reason for that is that the code is truely
open and free, and the BSD license has been the only one to stand up in a
court of law in that regard.

Shaky legal ground? I think not. If code is truely open and free, you don't
need any agreement between the author and Sun, and Sun is able to use it.

This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement
does that make about the code?

--

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

alanc

Posts: 5,504
From: US

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:53 PM

in response to: aland

Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 04:16 pm, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> The contributor agreement isn't going anywhere. It just makes plain good
>> sense to have. Any project without one is on shaky legal ground.
>
> IANAL, but I have to ponder why code released under the BSD license doesn't
> need to have a contributor agreement signed...???

No license requires you to have a contributor agreement to release code under
it - BSD is no different than GPL or CDDL there.

Contributor agreements are required by projects who want central legal control
for being able to change licenses or go after people who use their code without
following the license terms. So, CDDL doesn't require a contributor agreement,
the OpenSolaris project does.

> This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
> contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
> agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement
> does that make about the code?

The only statement that makes is that you misunderstand the licenses.

A BSD-licensed project could require contributor agreements to avoid the
sorts of headaches they had when UCB changed the BSD license to drop the
hated advertising clause and they had to get each copyright owner to agree
to relicense under the same terms.

--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

plocher

Posts: 1,495
From:

Registered: 5/18/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 6:25 PM

in response to: aland

Alan DuBoff wrote:
> This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
> contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
> agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of statement
> does that make about the code?

It says that the BSD licenses (and others like it) don't even begin to address
the issues of patent liability, while the CDDL does.

-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 6:48 PM

in response to: plocher

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:25 pm, John Plocher wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > This is truely one of the puzzling piece of OpenSolaris to me. If you
> > contribute BSD licensed code you don't need to sign the contributor
> > agreement, but if you contribute CDDL code, you do. What type of
> > statement does that make about the code?
>
> It says that the BSD licenses (and others like it) don't even begin to
> address the issues of patent liability, while the CDDL does.

John, Ok, then why don't we need to cover patent liability on BSD code? IOW,
why are our lawyers concerned with liability of CDDL code but not BSD?

--

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

alanbur

Posts: 1,218
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:54 AM

in response to: rich

Rich Teer wrote:

> If anything, I think people are "afraid" to contribute to non-Sun CDDLed
> projects is because of FUD spread by the anti-CDDL factions. I remember
> some assertions that said words to the effect of "ownership of any CDDLed
> code reverts to Sun", when that is patently not the case.

Please, let's not drag patent issues into this as well.

;-) ;-) ;-)

--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

rich

Posts: 1,091
From: CA

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 10:58 AM

in response to: alanbur

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:

> Please, let's not drag patent issues into this as well.
>
> ;-) ;-) ;-)

I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that! :-)

--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

casper

Posts: 3,398
From:

Registered: 3/9/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 11:13 AM

in response to: Guest

>contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
>foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
>variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
>project just because of that.
>
>http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/

And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL.

This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will
lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.

Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it.

Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license.

Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:17 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

>
> >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not
> possible in
> >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to
> CDDL projects for
> >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been
> forked to be pure GPL
> >project just because of that.
> >
> >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
> And this just proof that we do not want to have the
> GPL.
>
> This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL
> OpenSolaris will
> lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.
>
> Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual
> licensed it.
>
> Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual
> license.
>
> Casper

Agreed. It's a shining example of how large parts of the GPL community are only happy when everything is GPL. It's perfectly ok to take, take, and take from other projects that are compatible with their license, but deity forbid you give anything back under the original one.

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:17 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:18 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:18 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 4:18 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:01 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

> >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not
> possible in
> >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to
> CDDL projects for
> >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been
> forked to be pure GPL
> >project just because of that.
> >
> >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
> And this just proof that we do not want to have the
> GPL.
>
> This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL
> OpenSolaris will
> lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.
>
> Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual
> licensed it.
>
> Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual
> license.
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>

Agreed. Just look at GNU Hurd: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html#status

I don't see developers beating down their door just because it's GPL.

-Shawn

swalker

Posts: 1,154
From: US

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:01 PM

in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss

kaboom

Posts: 68
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 6, 2007 6:06 AM

in response to: casper

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:

>
> >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> >project just because of that.
> >
> >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
> And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL.
>
> This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will
> lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.
>
> Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it.
>
> Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license.

On the contrary, if cdrtools were truly dual-licensed, it wouldn't have to
have been forked. It's not, however, and that's not something Debian can
fix

The issue with cdrtools is a very specific one. cdrtools is not
dual-licensed, but instead contains files distributed under 3 different
licenses. Some people (Joerg, evidently Sun legal since Sun ships it) feel
this mix is legal. Others (Debian, Red Hat's legal team, probably others
but I've quit paying attention ;-) feel the mix is illegal and that
therefore a fork from the last legally licensed version was legally
necessary for them to be able to distribute it

cdrtools just isn't the generic proof of CDDL-GPL conflict you and others
portray it as. It's a very specific example of the confusion that arises
when you mix different licenses on different files within the same
project....

later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 6, 2007 8:04 AM

in response to: kaboom

Chris Ricker <kaboom at oobleck dot net> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >
> > >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > >project just because of that.
> > >
> > >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
> >
> > And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL.
> >
> > This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will
> > lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.
> >
> > Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it.
> >
> > Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license.
>
> On the contrary, if cdrtools were truly dual-licensed, it wouldn't have to
> have been forked. It's not, however, and that's not something Debian can
> fix

This is complete nonsense!

Debian claims that there is a liscense problem but Debian has been unable
to describe this "problem" within the past 12 months although I asked them
many times.

Debian is unable to understand build systems and Debian is unwilling
to cooperate. Debian spreads easy to expose FUD on cdrtools:

- cdrtools is a colloection of cdrecord, readcd, cdda2wav, btcflash,
rscsi, scgcheck, scgskeleton, mkisofs

- cdrecord, readcd, btcflash, rscsi, scgcheck, scgskeleton are _fully_
CDDL

- cdda2wav is CDDL + a LGPL library

- mkisofs is GPL and links to libs under various licenses

- The CDDL is accepted by Debian to be DFSG compatible

If Debian _really_ had a license problem, then this license problem is
definitely not effective for the project "cdrecord" but (if at all)
for "mkisofs".

If Debian _really_ had a license problem, Debian would need to rip off
"mkisofs" from the cdrtools source package and the remaining rest would be
CDDL plus one LGPL library. Debian could set up a separate source package
that only includes mkisofs and its needed libraries.

Debian did _not_ do this, Debian instead did stick with a very old
version of cdrtools that does not include DVD support and that is full
of bugs in mkisofs. Debian did not do any real development on this old code
but just made a lot of speudo changes to confuse and addd a lot of Linux
only code to platform independent parts of the source.

For this reason, it is obvious and proved that Debian does not have a license
problem but only likes to cause a Debian initiated conflict that is a burden to
the users.

> The issue with cdrtools is a very specific one. cdrtools is not
> dual-licensed, but instead contains files distributed under 3 different
> licenses. Some people (Joerg, evidently Sun legal since Sun ships it) feel
> this mix is legal. Others (Debian, Red Hat's legal team, probably others
> but I've quit paying attention ;-) feel the mix is illegal and that
> therefore a fork from the last legally licensed version was legally
> necessary for them to be able to distribute it

Redhad did never contact me for this reason, so we may safely asume that
Redhat does nto see a legal problem.

> cdrtools just isn't the generic proof of CDDL-GPL conflict you and others
> portray it as. It's a very specific example of the confusion that arises
> when you mix different licenses on different files within the same
> project....

It looks like you did not understand the problem at all, sorry.

Cdrtools is a collection of projects (see above).

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

dclarke

Posts: 1,539
From: Cobourg Ontario Canada

Registered: 4/27/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 12:11 PM

in response to: Guest

> Now, how many people we see contributing to Blastwave, SchiliX, BeleniX,
> Nexenta and Martux all together? 5-15?
>

excuse me but Blastwave is not an OpenSolaris distro.

Its an open source software service to Solaris users.

There are 11 developers logged in right now. There have been 46 logins
today but most guys keep their sessions open with screen or similar for
weeks on end.

Here is the software package release schedule over the past two weeks :

Date Package Filename
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Jan 30 11:27 courier_imap-4.1.2,REV=2007.01.26-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 11:25 libwpd-0.8.8,REV=2007.01.29-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 11:24 drupal-4.7.6-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 09:34
berkeleydb44_devel-4.4.20,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 09:34 berkeleydb44-4.4.20,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 09:33 berkeleydb44_doc-4.4.20,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 09:30 neon_devel-0.26.3,REV=2007.01.28-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 30 09:30 neon-0.26.3,REV=2007.01.28-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:47 binutils-2.17-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:22 libungif-4.1.4,REV=2007.01.23-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 send_nsca-2.7,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 nsca-2.7,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 nrpe-2.6,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 nagiosp-1.4.5,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 nagios-2.7,REV=2007.01.27-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 29 21:21 claws_mail-2.7.2,REV=2007.01.26-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 20:53 mimedefang-2.58,REV=2007.01.28-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 20:53 dillo-0.8.6-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 01:42 mysql5test-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.14-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 01:42 mysql5bench-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.14-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 01:41 bacula_docs-2.0.1,REV=2007.01.19-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 01:40 libcups-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 28 01:40 squid-2.6,REV=2007.01.26_STABLE9-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 27 19:47 cupsd-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 27 19:47 cupsclient-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 27 19:42 cupsdoc-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 27 19:42 cupsdev-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 27 19:42 cups-1.2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 26 12:57 pkg_get-3.7.1-all-CSW.pkg
Jan 25 20:50 wxwidgets_gtk2-2.8.0,REV=2007.01.24-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 20:50 wxwidgets_common-2.8.0,REV=2007.01.24-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 20:50 wxwidgets-2.8.0,REV=2007.01.24-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:28 log4j_doc-1.2.14-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:28 log4j-1.2.14-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficezuza-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficesvse-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeslsi-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficesksk-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeptpt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeptbr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeplpl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficennno-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficenlnl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficenbno-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeltlt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeitit-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficehuhu-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficehrhr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficegles-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficefrfr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficefrbe-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeetee-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeesmx-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeeses-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeenus-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeennz-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeengb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeenca-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeenau-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeelgr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficedede-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficedech-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficedeat-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficedadk-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficecygb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficecscz-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficecaes-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficebgbg-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 openofficeafza-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:27 ooouizu-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouisv-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouisl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouisk-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouiptbr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouipt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouipl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouinn-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouinl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouinb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouilt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouiit-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouihu-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouihr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouigl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouifr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:26 ooouiet-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouies-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouienus-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouiengb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouiel-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouide-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouida-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouicy-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouics-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouica-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouibg-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooouiaf-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictzuza-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictsvse-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictslsi-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictsksk-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictptpt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictptbr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictplpl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictnnno-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictnlnl-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:25 ooodictnbno-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictltlt-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictitit-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodicthuhu-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodicthrhr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictgles-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictfrfr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictfrbe-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictetee-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictesmx-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodicteses-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictenus-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictennz-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictengb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictenca-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictenau-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictelgr-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictdede-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictdech-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictdeat-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictdadk-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictcygb-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictcscz-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictcaes-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictbgbg-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooodictafza-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 17:24 ooocommon-2.1-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 16:59 ooocore-2.1-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 25 12:21 unrealircd-3.2.6-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 xterm-223-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 xchm-1.10-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 tor-0.1.1.26-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 seamonkey-1.1-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 rapidsvn-0.9.4,REV=2007.01.23-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 pound2-2.2.3-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 12:01 balance-3.35-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 23 11:56 ddd-3.3.11,REV=2007.01.23-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:37 micq-0.5.2,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:37 jhead-2.7,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:37 exim-4.66,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:37 dcraw-8.53,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:33 mysql5rt-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.14-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 mysql5devel-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.14-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 mysql5client-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.14-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 mysql5-5.0.33,REV=2007.01.21-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 bacula_gnome-2.0.1,REV=2007.01.21-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 bacula_client-2.0.1,REV=2007.01.21-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 17:32 bacula-2.0.1,REV=2007.01.21-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 22 13:46 libgcrypt-1.2.3,REV=2007.01.22-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 19 12:01 mldonkey-2.8.2-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:15 radiance-3.8,REV=2007.01.07,%ARCH%only-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:15 png-1.2.15-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:15 ntp-4.2.4,REV=2007.01.09-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:15 fetchmail-6.3.6-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:15 aspell-0.60.5-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 17:13 fetchmailconf-6.3.6-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 16:44 xfce-4.2.3.2,REV=2007.01.17-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 16:33 sqwebmail-5.1.5,REV=2007.01.11-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 16:33 maildrop-2.0.3,REV=2007.01.07-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 16:33 courier_auth-0.59,REV=2007.01.13-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 18 00:24 logrotate-3.7.4,REV=2007.01.16-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 17 12:27 elinks-0.11.2,REV=2007.01.16-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:52 lighttpd-1.4.13,REV=2007.01.16-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:51 openldap_rt-2.3.31,REV=2007.01.07-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:51 openldap_devel-2.3.31,REV=2007.01.07-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:51 openldap_client-2.3.31,REV=2007.01.07-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:51 openldap-2.3.31,REV=2007.01.07-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 14:50 rt-3.6.3,REV=2007.01.04-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 13:37 bash-3.2,REV=2007.01.15-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 13:37 lftp-3.5.9,REV=2007.01.15-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz
Jan 16 11:44 ocrad-0.16,REV=2007.01.15-SunOS5.8-%ARCH%-CSW.pkg.gz

Those are all actually *released* to the public and out the door.

So, alive and well. Lots of community involvement over here and I need
more disk space and backup tapes and bandwidth and ... isn't growth grand?

--
Dennis Clarke

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:24 PM

in response to: Guest

Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> > As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> > dual licensing is trying to solve?
>
> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
>
> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> project just because of that.

I am sorry to read this from you. From the discussions we did have in the past,
I know that you know that this is not true.

There is a lot of FUD that has been spread by some GPL bigots but I am still
waiting for an explanation on why there should be a license problem in cdrtools.

The real problem with the people who started this speudo fork is not license
based but it is that they are not willing to cooperate in a quality based way.

This personal problem of these people is used to drive an anti-CDDl campaign
but you cannot work against this campaign by starting to talk about the GPLv3.
The right way to answer this FUD campaign is to inform people about the CDDL.

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

erast

Posts: 278
From:

Registered: 5/12/06

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:34 PM

in response to: Joerg Schilling

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:24 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> > > As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> > > dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >
> > one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
> >
> > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > project just because of that.
>
> I am sorry to read this from you. From the discussions we did have in the past,
> I know that you know that this is not true.

I'm sorry I cited it. But this is fact of history. Yes I never fully
agreed with what happened.

--
Erast

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 3:53 PM

in response to: erast

Erast Benson <erast at gnusolaris dot org> wrote:

> > I am sorry to read this from you. From the discussions we did have in the past,
> > I know that you know that this is not true.
>
> I'm sorry I cited it. But this is fact of history. Yes I never fully
> agreed with what happened.

Some people started a personal attack against me. These people just dislike
cooperation and did combinetheir personal attacks with anti CDDL FUD.
Meanwhile there is an official statement from Debian that the CDDL
is defintely a free license. The people from Debian who started the
anti CDDL FUD campaign still ignore 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

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 5:23 PM

in response to: Joerg Schilling

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 03:53 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Some people started a personal attack against me. These people just dislike
> cooperation and did combinetheir personal attacks with anti CDDL FUD.
> Meanwhile there is an official statement from Debian that the CDDL
> is defintely a free license. The people from Debian who started the
> anti CDDL FUD campaign still ignore this.

This is actually good that Debian made a statement, and that they do consider
CDDL to be free, I didn't know that happened.

We can't force them to like OpenSolaris, but as long as the DFSG acknowledges
that CDDL is an open and free license, there's not too much more we can do,
IMO.

--

Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 9:55 AM

in response to: aland

Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at Sun dot Com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 03:53 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Some people started a personal attack against me. These people just dislike
> > cooperation and did combinetheir personal attacks with anti CDDL FUD.
> > Meanwhile there is an official statement from Debian that the CDDL
> > is defintely a free license. The people from Debian who started the
> > anti CDDL FUD campaign still ignore this.
>
> This is actually good that Debian made a statement, and that they do consider
> CDDL to be free, I didn't know that happened.
>
> We can't force them to like OpenSolaris, but as long as the DFSG acknowledges
> that CDDL is an open and free license, there's not too much more we can do,
> IMO.

What could be done is informing people about the backgrounds.

Debian still did not update star (which is 100% CDDL) and Debian people
did claim that there is a problem with cdrecord although cdrecord went
100% CDDL in May 2006.

As long as I am the only person who informs people about the fact that
Debian is no longer "kosher", people will mobb me..... If other people
understand the problem and inform others, it would be harder for Debian to
attack me and also OpenSolaris (note that that Debian tells people that the
problem is that I am supporting OpenSolaris...).

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

aland

Posts: 1,109
From:

Registered: 6/14/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 1, 2007 4:05 PM

in response to: Joerg Schilling

On Thursday 01 February 2007 09:55 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as I am the only person who informs people about the fact that
> Debian is no longer "kosher", people will mobb me..... If other people
> understand the problem and inform others, it would be harder for Debian to
> attack me and also OpenSolaris (note that that Debian tells people that the
> problem is that I am supporting OpenSolaris...).

I would rather we take the high road, don't tell people that they are no
longer "kosher", and work with them so they feel content that CDDL is.

P!$$!n@ matches and endless debates on who is or who isn't free doesn't get us
anywhere, and in the end waste useful energy.

--

Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Feb 2, 2007 2:04 AM

in response to: aland

Alan DuBoff <Alan dot DuBoff at Sun dot Com> wrote:

> On Thursday 01 February 2007 09:55 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > As long as I am the only person who informs people about the fact that
> > Debian is no longer "kosher", people will mobb me..... If other people
> > understand the problem and inform others, it would be harder for Debian to
> > attack me and also OpenSolaris (note that that Debian tells people that the
> > problem is that I am supporting OpenSolaris...).
>
> I would rather we take the high road, don't tell people that they are no
> longer "kosher", and work with them so they feel content that CDDL is.

The problem is that these people do not talk with us anymore.

As I mentioned before, the real problem is not the license but the
unwillingness of these people to cooperate in a fruitful way.

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

jimgris

Posts: 3,835
From: JP

Registered: 4/6/05

Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted: Jan 31, 2007 8:38 PM

in response to: Guest

Erast Benson wrote On 02/01/07 03:20,:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
>
>>As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
>>dual licensing is trying to solve?
>
>
> one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
>
> And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> project just because of that.
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
> Now, how many people we see contributing to Blastwave, SchiliX, BeleniX,
> Nexenta and Martux all together? 5-15?

SchilliX, BeleniX, Nexenta, and Martux didn't exist before OpenSolaris.
The fact that they now do exist is excellent and demonstrates success
(to this level, anyway) of the code, community, and the license. So,
they build from there. What's the problem?

OpenSolaris code contributors are mostly here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/request_sponsor/
http://opensolaris.org/os/bug_reports/arc_table/
There are a few others that contribute to projects that are not
integrated, I understand. But at 20 months, I'm actually very impressed
with that list of (code) contributions. We shouldn't only focus on code,
though, because that doesn't consider other ways people participate.

> If you still think we don't have problems with our community, think
> again please. But I believe if GPLv3 dual-licensing is done right, it
> will improve this situation drastically.

I would hope that any dual licensing strategy would help the community
grow. Or else why do it, right? But I would also hope that people don't
think we are having this discussion because of any faults with CDDL.
That's just not the case. Harpster and others are clear about that.

Jim

_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org

Back to Thread List