|
Replies:
19
-
Last Post:
Feb 27, 2007 11:03 PM
by: casper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:26 PM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:26 PM
in response to: Guest
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> 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.
This is not about license, it's about process. Today, as it stands, you can
bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a contributers agreement,
this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a contributer agreement (from
Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what the BSD project requires.
You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about Sun's legal team
misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to know the legalities of
these licenses pretty well, IMO.
To me the statement this process makes is that BSD code is more open and free
than CDDL code. CDDL was a good idea, it does much of what many felt was the
best at the time.
And just because someone like Apple is happy to take our free code in no way
shows CDDL to be a success or accepted, it's when the changes get back into
the mainline that one can place a value on that.
--
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: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:32 PM
in response to: aland
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan
> Coopersmith wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is not about license, it's about process. Today,
> as it stands, you can
> bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a
> contributers agreement,
> this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a
> contributer agreement (from
> Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what
> the BSD project requires.
> You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about
> Sun's legal team
> misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to
> know the legalities of
> these licenses pretty well, IMO.
That isn't true as far as I know. Every contribution I make has to be made under the contributor agreement. Any time I have offered to make a contribution I've been reminded of or asked for my contributor agreement number.
The Free Software Foundation also requires a contributor agreement, and so does the Apache foundation, and so do others. I have no idea why people are suddenly holding onto the idea that the contributor agreement is the problem when no clear indicator has proven that.
> To me the statement this process makes is that BSD
> code is more open and free
> than CDDL code. CDDL was a good idea, it does much of
> what many felt was the
> best at the time.
I think you're mixing up licensing and project requirements.
I have seen nothing anywhere on this site that says I can contribute code to the OpenSolaris project, regardless of license, without a contributor agreement.
Please point me to where it says I can do this.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:32 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is not about license, it's about process. Today, as it stands, you can
> bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a contributers agreement,
> this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a contributer agreement (from
> Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what the BSD project requires.
> You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about Sun's legal team
> misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to know the legalities of
> these licenses pretty well, IMO.
You should be able to do the same for CDDL if you're trying to treat the
software as an external package we distribute the way we do with many outside
projects, and not as something integrated into our project and which will
evolve long-term as part of our code tree and not track an external community.
--
-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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:54 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:32 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> You should be able to do the same for CDDL if you're trying to treat the
> software as an external package we distribute the way we do with many
> outside projects, and not as something integrated into our project and
> which will evolve long-term as part of our code tree and not track an
> external community.
No, I don't think it's possible. I believe you will be required to sign the
agreement if you want to license the code under CDDL, but you won't if you
license the code under BSD.
This is for a piece of code that will be included in Solaris/OpenSolaris.
--
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:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 6:59 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:32 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> You should be able to do the same for CDDL if you're trying to treat the
>> software as an external package we distribute the way we do with many
>> outside projects, and not as something integrated into our project and
>> which will evolve long-term as part of our code tree and not track an
>> external community.
>
> No, I don't think it's possible. I believe you will be required to sign the
> agreement if you want to license the code under CDDL, but you won't if you
> license the code under BSD.
That only makes sense if the original author was contributing the code
directly to OpenSolaris. If we're choosing to pull from another project,
we wouldn't ask them to sign over their copyright to us - it's still a
difference of how the code is coming in, not what the license was. If
the code is BSD licensed, we're pulling it in, not having it contributed.
I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
--
-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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 10:15 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
Correct. If the code is a "pull", i.e., a Sun employee is pulling
outside code into OpenSolaris, then a CA isn't required because a) all
Sun employees sign a similar agreement when they join; and b) all code
that comes in via this route undergoes a more extensive legal review.
(We have an internal legal tool called OSR, Open Source Review, that all
incoming code must go through. I and my VP have to sign off on all
incoming code.)
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:32 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>> You should be able to do the same for CDDL if you're trying to treat
>>> the
>>> software as an external package we distribute the way we do with many
>>> outside projects, and not as something integrated into our project and
>>> which will evolve long-term as part of our code tree and not track an
>>> external community.
>>
>> No, I don't think it's possible. I believe you will be required to
>> sign the agreement if you want to license the code under CDDL, but
>> you won't if you license the code under BSD.
>
> That only makes sense if the original author was contributing the code
> directly to OpenSolaris. If we're choosing to pull from another
> project,
> we wouldn't ask them to sign over their copyright to us - it's still a
> difference of how the code is coming in, not what the license was. If
> the code is BSD licensed, we're pulling it in, not having it contributed.
>
> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
> CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 10:57 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
> CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
knowingly, without a signed agreement.
--
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:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 10:59 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
>> CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
>
> I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
> knowingly, without a signed agreement.
Sure they would, if it's an outside project we're shipping just as
we do GNOME, X, Mozilla, etc. You'ld go through the Open Source
Review process just like any other open source code. Signed agreements
are only asked for contributions to our code base.
--
-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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:16 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include the
>> CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
>
>I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
>knowingly, without a signed agreement.
Why do you think that?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 4:20 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include
> >> the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
> >
> >I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
> >knowingly, without a signed agreement.
>
> Why do you think that?
Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code
into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code
licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will
ship in a Sun product.
Maybe you have a different experience.
--
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:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:41 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee
doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For
the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A
BSD license does not give you a free pass.
For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through
the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license
and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee,
whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it
on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you
haven't been doing that, we need to talk.)
I'm sure exposing our internal workings is boring for people, but there
you go. Some folks complain about Sun being too opaque. ;-) I just
wanted to clear up some confusion here.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:16 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 06:59 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't expect us to ask Joerg for a contributor agreement to include
>>>> the CDDL licensed cdrecord, because it's an external project.
>>>>
>>> I would actually, and don't think legal will let something like that in,
>>> knowingly, without a signed agreement.
>>>
>> Why do you think that?
>>
>
> Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code
> into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code
> licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will
> ship in a Sun product.
>
> Maybe you have a different experience.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:32 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee
> doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For
> the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A
> BSD license does not give you a free pass.
>
> For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through
> the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license
> and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee,
> whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it
> on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you
> haven't been doing that, we need to talk.)
Ok, that clears it up for me some, and I'm internal.:-)
If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something
into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and
they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA.
This pretty much applies to everyone, since they need to have a sponsor to
begin with. Maybe I'm missing something here...
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group
Advocate of Insourcing at Sun, hire people that care about our company!
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:08 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something
>into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and
>they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA.
Scratch the "license it under BSD"; there's no requirement at all for
that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
a BSD license.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 27, 2007 6:39 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> Scratch the "license it under BSD"; there's no requirement at all for
> that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
> a BSD license.
Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you
bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person
to sign a CDA.
Do you know something different Casper?
--
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:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 27, 2007 9:05 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> Scratch the "license it under BSD"; there's no requirement at all for
>> that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
>> a BSD license.
>
> Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you
> bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person
> to sign a CDA.
And you've been told on multiple occasions that you are wrong.
CDA is only needed for code contributed to OpenSolaris by the
contributor. CDA is related to how we get the code, not the
license it is under.
--
-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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 27, 2007 11:03 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
>On Friday 02 February 2007 01:08 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> Scratch the "license it under BSD"; there's no requirement at all for
>> that; where do you thing the GNOME stuff came from? It's not under
>> a BSD license.
>
>Sorry to be late in replying to this, but my understanding is that if you
>bring any code other than BSD licensed code, you will need to get the person
>to sign a CDA.
>
>Do you know something different Casper?
False. Inside Sun, it's just "follow the inbound opensource process";
the author generally has nothing to do with it but legal needs to sign
of on the license.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:15 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Sponsors are an artifact resulting from our lack of an external SCM.
Even with a sponsor, every non-Sun employee that wants to contribute
code to OpenSolaris must sign the CA. Period. You have to get that BSD
license out of your head. It does not affect the process in any way.
You must follow the same steps no matter what the license is.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:41 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> As per my previous email, it depends on whether your a Sun employee
>> doing a pull, or a non-Sun employee doing a push (contribution). For
>> the latter, you absolutely need to sign the CA regardless of license. A
>> BSD license does not give you a free pass.
>>
>> For the Sun employee doing a pull, like yourself, you need to go through
>> the OSR legal tool. (That's an internal tool that examines the license
>> and does a legal review of it.) ALL code pulled in by a Sun employee,
>> whether you embed this in a Sun product such as Solaris or just use it
>> on your desktop for your own work, needs to go through OSR. (If you
>> haven't been doing that, we need to talk.)
>>
>
> Ok, that clears it up for me some, and I'm internal.:-)
>
> If I understand you correctly, an external community member can get something
> into OpenSolaris if they can get a sun employee to bring it in for them, and
> they license it under BSD. Then they will not have to sign a CA.
>
> This pretty much applies to everyone, since they need to have a sponsor to
> begin with. Maybe I'm missing something here...
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:38 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
>Because, through my experience working with legal, the only way to get code
>into Solaris without signing a contributor's agreement is to have the code
>licensed under BSD. This is external code, coming into Solaris, that will
>ship in a Sun product.
That's absolutely not the case. There's a preponderance of software
under different licenses (Apache, GPL, BSD, to numerous to mention
really)
This is what our whole inbound open source process is about.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 10:12 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Not true. All contributions require you to sign a CA. We need to be
sure that you either wrote the code or have the right to it. We don't
want to run afoul of hidden patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 05:53 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This is not about license, it's about process. Today, as it stands, you can
> bring BSD code into Solaris/OpenSolaris without a contributers agreement,
> this is what I meant about BSD not requiring a contributer agreement (from
> Sun to bring into Solaris/OpenSolaris) and not what the BSD project requires.
> You can't do the same for CDDL. Maybe this is about Sun's legal team
> misunderstanding the license then...but they seem to know the legalities of
> these licenses pretty well, IMO.
>
> To me the statement this process makes is that BSD code is more open and free
> than CDDL code. CDDL was a good idea, it does much of what many felt was the
> best at the time.
>
> And just because someone like Apple is happy to take our free code in no way
> shows CDDL to be a success or accepted, it's when the changes get back into
> the mainline that one can place a value on that.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
