|
Replies:
7
-
Last Post:
Jan 31, 2007 1:14 PM
by: swalker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:03 AM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:03 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:55 -0800, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> > > > 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.
i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company,
not a community. Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but
because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking
about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS
on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement.
> 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).
this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve.
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:12 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
Erast Benson wrote:
>> 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).
>
> this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve.
Unlikely. Until there is case law to quote, it's very difficult for a
lawyer to say anything definitive.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:18 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
>Erast Benson wrote:
>
>>> 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).
>>
>> this is something I hope Sun lawyers could resolve.
>
>Unlikely. Until there is case law to quote, it's very difficult for a
>lawyer to say anything definitive.
In fact, the suggestion of non-removable dual licensing does not
work; it means there's a single license but you only need to
abide by half the terms (and both bits need to stipulate that the
entire license is to be retained).
That's not what dual licensing is...
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:17 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
> > 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.
>
> i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company,
> not a community.
I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding: companies are
not single-minded borgs -- they are merely organizations of individuals
who happen to be aligned around a loose set of ideas or goals. That's
true of Sun, it's true of Apple, and it's true of most other innovative
companies out there. (And the trend is for companies to allow for more
transparency into the individuals that comprise them, not less.)
And speaking for DTrace, there are significant parts of the DTrace
implementation for which the only understanding outside of Sun lies with
engineers at Apple. Sometimes these individuals participate in the
DTrace community under Apple's banner (e.g., posting from an apple.com
address) and sometimes they don't. To us, it doesn't matter -- we are
joined by common values and ideas that transcend corporate affiliations.
> Apple decided to take it not just because of CDDL, but
> because ZFS is so f**king great stuff, isn't it? Besides, we are talking
> about the possibility of dual-licensing, so Apple could still take ZFS
> on terms of CDDL part of dual-licensing agreement.
But the question is: would they? It's not clear to me that they would,
but that's a question that Apple's legal team would need to answer (for
it was they who reviewed and approved of the CDDL).
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 11:32 AM
in response to: erast
|
|
Erast Benson wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>i'm not sure this data point applicable. Apple is just another company,
>not a community.
>
You miss the point, someone (anyone, individual, company, whatever) has
seen the value in a piece of open source Solaris code and taken it on
board. They will modify it, expose it to a wider audience, extol its
virtues and hopefully even improve it and we will see the benefit.
Isn't that what this 'community' wants?
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 1:14 PM
in response to: Guest
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 10:55 am, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> 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.
My $0.02, this is a bad example. The fact is that Apple was not using it
because of CDDL, but because the lack of a license that they couldn't use,
GPL a case in point.
What I would be completely against is if the license is changed to make it
easier for Linux to use *our* technology, but end up in a continuing cluster
f#@$ on the OpenSolaris side trying to use theirs.
That seems like a situation we have to face today, and everytime a piece of
GPL code comes into play, the leagal beagles want to sniff it to make sure
there's nothing bad inside of it...
The greyist area is with IHVs/OEMs who have device drivers that are GPL'd
today, and Sun asks them to dual license under CDDL so it could be used. This
could also present problems down the road in regards to GPL, I don't know for
certain.
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:35 PM
in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 10:55 am, Bryan Cantrill
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> My $0.02, this is a bad example. The fact is that
> Apple was not using it
> because of CDDL, but because the lack of a license
> that they couldn't use,
> GPL a case in point.
>
> What I would be completely against is if the license
> is changed to make it
> easier for Linux to use *our* technology, but end up
> in a continuing cluster
> f#@$ on the OpenSolaris side trying to use theirs.
>
> That seems like a situation we have to face today,
> and everytime a piece of
> GPL code comes into play, the leagal beagles want to
> sniff it to make sure
> there's nothing bad inside of it...
>
> The greyist area is with IHVs/OEMs who have device
> drivers that are GPL'd
> today, and Sun asks them to dual license under CDDL
> so it could be used. This
> could also present problems down the road in regards
> to GPL, I don't know for
> certain.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
Well, since the Linux folks are staying GPLv2 only (since they apparently have no choice in the matter according to Linus) I don't see how adopting GPLv3 will help us, and as I'm sure you know, the GPLv2 simply isn't an option. It doesn't address the patent problems and numerous other issues that exist with the GPLv2.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
