|
Replies:
38
-
Last Post:
Feb 5, 2007 3:47 AM
by: darrenm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:11 PM
|
|
[No Body]
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:11 PM
in response to: Guest
|
|
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
>>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be
>>> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in
>>> the world
>>
>> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>
> Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
> this is exactly what would happen.
>
When ?
When did you have these direct conversations with Stallman et al?
--
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 9:26 PM
in response to: dclarke
|
|
On Feb 1, 2007, at 05:11, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
>>>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that
>>>> would be
>>>> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or
>>>> advertising in
>>>> the world
>>>
>>> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>>
>> Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
>> this is exactly what would happen.
>>
>
> When ?
>
> When did you have these direct conversations with Stallman et al?
I correspond with them frequently, and I have had input from a number
of significant FSF officials as unsolicited additional comments in
other correspondence, pretty much continuously ever since the idea
was mooted at JavaOne last year.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Jan 31, 2007 10:27 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 05:11, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>>>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
>>>>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that
>>>>> would be
>>>>> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or
>>>>> advertising in
>>>>> the world
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>>>
>>> Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
>>> this is exactly what would happen.
>>>
>>
>> When ?
>>
>> When did you have these direct conversations with Stallman et al?
>
> I correspond with them frequently, and I have had input from a number
> of significant FSF officials as unsolicited additional comments in
> other correspondence, pretty much continuously ever since the idea
> was mooted at JavaOne last year.
>
wow
please do keep us posted ...
Dennis
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 12:26 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
>
>On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
>>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be
>>> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in
>>> the world
>>
>> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>
>Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
>this is exactly what would happen.
And this would matter how exactly?
It's well known that there's a spat between Linux (Sorry, GNU/Linux)
and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is going nowhere;
they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that the kind of company
we want to keep?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 7:36 AM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> >On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
> Sonnenschein wrote:
> >>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
> promoting Solaris instead
> >>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went
> gpl3, that would be
> >>> more helpful to the project than any amount of
> code or advertising in
> >>> the world
> >>
> >> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
> >
> >Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them
> that suggests
> >this is exactly what would happen.
>
> And this would matter how exactly?
>
> It's well known that there's a spat between Linux
> (Sorry, GNU/Linux)
> and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is
> going nowhere;
> they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that
> the kind of company
> we want to keep?
>
> Casper
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist (as far as I know).
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 7:42 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > >On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
> > Sonnenschein wrote:
> > >>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
> > promoting Solaris instead
> > >>> of that other kernel, and they would if we went
> > gpl3, that would be
> > >>> more helpful to the project than any amount of
> > code or advertising in
> > >>> the world
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
> > >
> > >Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them
> > that suggests
> > >this is exactly what would happen.
> >
> > And this would matter how exactly?
> >
> > It's well known that there's a spat between Linux
> > (Sorry, GNU/Linux)
> > and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it is
> > going nowhere;
> > they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is that
> > the kind of company
> > we want to keep?
> >
> > Casper
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> >
>
> So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist (as far as I know).
Solaris is a distribution of Sun Microsystem, only Sun can decide to go
with GNU userland.
On the other hand, we already have GNU/OpenSolaris NexentaOS:
http://www.gnusolaris.org
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
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:
Feb 1, 2007 7:50 AM
in response to: erast
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker
> wrote:
> > > >On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
> > > Sonnenschein wrote:
> > > >>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
> > > promoting Solaris instead
> > > >>> of that other kernel, and they would if we
> went
> > > gpl3, that would be
> > > >>> more helpful to the project than any amount
> of
> > > code or advertising in
> > > >>> the world
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
> > > >
> > > >Actually I have had plenty of direct input from
> them
> > > that suggests
> > > >this is exactly what would happen.
> > >
> > > And this would matter how exactly?
> > >
> > > It's well known that there's a spat between Linux
> > > (Sorry, GNU/Linux)
> > > and the FSF; Hurd is the FSF's current OS and it
> is
> > > going nowhere;
> > > they'd be switching from Hurd to Solaris. Is
> that
> > > the kind of company
> > > we want to keep?
> > >
> > > Casper
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> > > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
> > >
> >
> > So will Stallman ask us to call it GNU/Solaris? It
> obviously doesn't apply to Solaris since we have our
> own compiler, etc. and don't need GNU tools to exist
> (as far as I know).
>
> Solaris is a distribution of Sun Microsystem, only
> Sun can decide to go
> with GNU userland.
>
> On the other hand, we already have GNU/OpenSolaris
> NexentaOS:
> http://www.gnusolaris.org
>
> --
> Erast
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
Right, we know that. I was just pointing out that unlike Linux, it's perfectly fair to NOT call an OpenSolaris distribution GNU/Solaris unless it was built with and depends on GNU tools :)
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:05 AM
in response to: Guest
|
|
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:49 pm, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
> >> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be
> >> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in
> >> the world
> >
> > Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>
> Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
> this is exactly what would happen.
If you get Stallman to start promoting Solaris rather than GNU/Linux, and my
hat is off to you Simon! I have to see it to believe it though...no early
celebrations.;-)
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:28 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:49 pm, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John Sonnenschein wrote:
>> >> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start promoting Solaris instead
>> >> of that other kernel, and they would if we went gpl3, that would be
>> >> more helpful to the project than any amount of code or advertising in
>> >> the world
>> >
>> > Yeah, right...I'll hold my breath for that...
>>
>> Actually I have had plenty of direct input from them that suggests
>> this is exactly what would happen.
>
>If you get Stallman to start promoting Solaris rather than GNU/Linux, and my
>hat is off to you Simon! I have to see it to believe it though...no early
>celebrations.;-)
That's what they want you to think Alan; he'd be promoting it
rather than "Gnu/Hurd"; so we get all those followers (what, all five
of them)
But if they don't say it in public *before* we change the license,
it's all to easy to deny such statements later.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 2:09 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:28 am, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> That's what they want you to think Alan; he'd be promoting it
> rather than "Gnu/Hurd"; so we get all those followers (what, all five
> of them)
I don't want to be misled by a smoke screen though.
> But if they don't say it in public *before* we change the license,
> it's all to easy to deny such statements later.
I think it remains to be seen if we change to the license or not.
A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed Java
under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed more
logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is true,
but for those that know what is underneath the surface, know that it couldn't
be GPL even if folks wanted that, due to the contents as a whole.
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 2:34 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
>A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed Java
>under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed more
>logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is true,
>but for those that know what is underneath the surface, know that it couldn't
>be GPL even if folks wanted that, due to the contents as a whole.
I think you friend does not understand much of licensing; one of
the nice things of the CDDL is that it allows you to build things without
having to go to the trouble to publish all your modifications.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
John Mark Walker
johnmark@hyperic.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 2:50 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> I think you friend does not understand much of licensing; one of
> the nice things of the CDDL is that it allows you to build things without
> having to go to the trouble to publish all your modifications.
>
As the friend in question, I'm going to have to say that there are very
very good reasons for what I suggested :)
I also know that there is quite a bit of room for reasonable minds to
disagree, which is why I don't get all zealous about the GPL.
Honestly, the bottom line is that CDDL won't be too inhibiting in terms
of community-building - that will depend on how you guys go about your
outreach efforts, particularly wrt groups like nexenta (apologies if I
mispelled that). Considering that the GPL forces derivative works (read:
other companies' products built on your code) to release the code,
there's a reason why companies like my own, Hyperic, choose it to
release software. I see very solid business benefits to using the GPL,
and this has nothing to do with DFSG, FSF, GNU/Debian, GNU/Stallman, or
any other such nonsense. I can see arguments going the other way, of
course, but at the moment I disagree with many of them.
The fact that Eben Moglen has said that there's no meat to the GPL and
CDDL incompatibilities, at least where Nexenta is concerned, should
eventually clear out all of that riffraff, anyway. In the end, I have my
preferences and you of yours, and I don't think there is an absolute
wrong or right in that discussion.
-John Mark Walker
Hyperic Community Outreach
http://www.hyperic.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:54 AM
in response to: John Mark Walker
|
|
"John Mark Walker" <johnmark at hyperic dot com> wrote:
> The fact that Eben Moglen has said that there's no meat to the GPL and
> CDDL incompatibilities, at least where Nexenta is concerned, should
> eventually clear out all of that riffraff, anyway. In the end, I have my
> preferences and you of yours, and I don't think there is an absolute
> wrong or right in that discussion.
You don't need Eben Moglen for this...
The GPL is unambigiuos in this area: the GPL only forbids merging
GPL with non-GPL code if the non-GPL code becomes a "derived work"
from the GPL code by this merge.
The problem was only the some people from Debian do not read the GPL carefully
enough and try to enforce things that are not required by the GPL.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 3:40 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 02:34 pm, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >A friend mentioned to me today that it was interesting that Sun licensed
> > Java under GPLv2, but Solaris under CDDL, and that it would have seemed
> > more logical to license them the other way around. On the surface this is
> > true, but for those that know what is underneath the surface, know that
> > it couldn't be GPL even if folks wanted that, due to the contents as a
> > whole.
>
> I think you friend does not understand much of licensing; one of
> the nice things of the CDDL is that it allows you to build things without
> having to go to the trouble to publish all your modifications.
You always say this of people, but the cold hard truth is that most all people
that use computers do not want to have to think like a lawyer to understand
if they can use the software or not.
These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source
software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When
they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in
Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time, I'm not sure what to say other
than "Sun is slow", but maybe I should change that to, "you don't understand
licensing" as a catch all...:-/
From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark.
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 3:51 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source
> software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When
> they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in
> Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time, I'm not sure what to say other
> than "Sun is slow", but maybe I should change that to, "you don't understand
> licensing" as a catch all...:-/
How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"?
Xorg release to OpenSolaris is coming up on the one year mark soon - it
went out at the end of March 2006. JDS/GNOME beat us by about 6 months.
--
-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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:13 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"?
Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't
mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the sources for
OpenSolaris today, it does not install X, nor does it GNOME, nor does it
CUPS, as a case in point.
In fact, if we're lucky we can unpackage the tarball for the Xorg distribution
on what is called OpenSolaris today.
> Xorg release to OpenSolaris is coming up on the one year mark soon - it
> went out at the end of March 2006. JDS/GNOME beat us by about 6 months.
Neither of which are actually functional in regards to OpenSolaris. Please
don't hurt your hand while you're patting yourself on the 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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:19 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"?
>
> Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't
> mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the sources for
> OpenSolaris today, it does not install X, nor does it GNOME, nor does it
> CUPS, as a case in point.
Bullshit. There is no one "sources for OpenSolaris" - there's the ON sources,
the X sources, the JDS sources, the SFW sources - all of which together make
up OpenSolaris. No one source can be considered to comprise all of it, just
as you wouldn't say that the tarball you download from kernel.org makes up all
of Debian or Fedora.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan dot coopersmith at sun dot com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
February 2007 Selection: LSARC Chair of the Month Club
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:14 PM
in response to: alanc
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:19 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long
> >> time"?
> >
> > Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site
> > doesn't mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the
> > sources for OpenSolaris today, it does not install X, nor does it GNOME,
> > nor does it CUPS, as a case in point.
>
> Bullshit. There is no one "sources for OpenSolaris" - there's the ON
> sources, the X sources, the JDS sources, the SFW sources - all of which
> together make up OpenSolaris. No one source can be considered to comprise
> all of it, just as you wouldn't say that the tarball you download from
> kernel.org makes up all of Debian or Fedora.
Ok, so we throw a bunch of packages on OpenSolaris.org and say they're a part
of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris is not a usable and complete system as it is
today, and even if you claim that we have all of these packages available,
they're not usable in any way without a lot of work and configuration.
But this is where Solaris has traditionally fallen short, installation and
configuration, and for those that can manage it have been able to fall in
love with it.
The average user just wanted to download a distribution, install it, and use
it. They come to OpenSolaris thinking it's a distribution, since this is how
Sun has marketed it, that they have open sourced Solaris. People associate
Solaris with Xorg, <gasp> GNOME, and other pieces such as CUPS, sfw,
companion cd, etc...
Bullshit is a good description of what the user is left with at the end of the
day, if they do install OpenSolaris as we know it today. Most sensible folks
install Solaris Express and lay OpenSolaris over the top, so they don't have
to figure out how to get the Xorg package you tossed over the firewall to
work.
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:05 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
>Ok, so we throw a bunch of packages on OpenSolaris.org and say they're a part
>of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris is not a usable and complete system as it is
>today, and even if you claim that we have all of these packages available,
>they're not usable in any way without a lot of work and configuration.
It's not *meant* to be a "usable system".
It's not even meant to be a *system*.
It's a loosely tight set of open source projects which can be used
to be rolled into an OpenSolaris based distribution.
You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix, Nexenta,
etc...
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:49 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
--- Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>
> >Ok, so we throw a bunch of packages on OpenSolaris.org and say
> they're a part
> >of OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris is not a usable and complete system as
> it is
> >today, and even if you claim that we have all of these packages
> available,
> >they're not usable in any way without a lot of work and
> configuration.
>
>
> It's not *meant* to be a "usable system".
>
> It's not even meant to be a *system*.
>
> It's a loosely tight set of open source projects which can be used
> to be rolled into an OpenSolaris based distribution.
>
> You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix,
> Nexenta,
> etc...
Casper, Thanks for that tidbit.
Would you mind exploring that a bit further? I'm now very confused...
OpenSolaris is not a Kernel, not a distro, but something in between?
Explain please... And if you can, make comparisons to well-known
products...
Thanks
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 9:14 AM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
Christopher Mahan writes:
> > You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix,
> > Nexenta,
> > etc...
>
> Casper, Thanks for that tidbit.
>
> Would you mind exploring that a bit further? I'm now very confused...
> OpenSolaris is not a Kernel, not a distro, but something in between?
> Explain please... And if you can, make comparisons to well-known
> products...
It's been discussed here many times before. It's a source repository,
akin to kernel.org for Linux. You don't execute source.
The distributors take the source, compile it, package it, and put it
into neat DVD images for installing on a system. That's what Sun's
Solaris, SchilliX, Nexenta, BeleniX, MarTUX, and the others are.
--
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
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:21 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
--- James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at sun dot com> wrote:
> Christopher Mahan writes:
> > > You don't install OpenSolaris; you'd install Solaris, Schillix,
> > > Nexenta,
> > > etc...
> >
> > Casper, Thanks for that tidbit.
> >
> > Would you mind exploring that a bit further? I'm now very
> confused...
> > OpenSolaris is not a Kernel, not a distro, but something in
> between?
> > Explain please... And if you can, make comparisons to well-known
> > products...
>
> It's been discussed here many times before. It's a source
> repository,
> akin to kernel.org for Linux. You don't execute source.
>
> The distributors take the source, compile it, package it, and put
> it
> into neat DVD images for installing on a system. That's what Sun's
> Solaris, SchilliX, Nexenta, BeleniX, MarTUX, and the others are.
But you do build it to make sure it's working right? Where are those
builds?
Thanks.
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo dot com
chris dot mahan at gmail dot com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:27 AM
in response to: Christopher Mahan
|
|
>But you do build it to make sure it's working right? Where are those
>builds?
"Solaris Express Community Edition" is a collection of builds.
There may be some other bits (I think OS-Net binaries are available)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 7:32 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> The average user just wanted to download a distribution, install it, and use
> it. They come to OpenSolaris thinking it's a distribution, since this is how
> Sun has marketed it, that they have open sourced Solaris. People associate
> Solaris with Xorg, <gasp> GNOME, and other pieces such as CUPS, sfw,
> companion cd, etc...
>
> Bullshit is a good description of what the user is left with at the end of the
> day, if they do install OpenSolaris as we know it today. Most sensible folks
> install Solaris Express and lay OpenSolaris over the top, so they don't have
> to figure out how to get the Xorg package you tossed over the firewall to
> work.
If they want a distro, they install Solaris Express, Nexenta, Belenix or
Schillix, and they have OpenSolaris. There is no such thing as "lay
OpenSolaris over the top". If they want to work with the code or try even
newer bits, they download the sources for the parts they're interested in
and build, or the binaries for those parts like ON & JDS that make pre-built
binaries available - but if they don't do any of these they're still running
the same code we make available via OpenSolaris.
If we did as you seem to be trying to suggest and took all the code we've
released, built & packaged it, put a installer on it, why then we'd end up
with something almost exactly like Solaris Express, so we don't waste our
time duplicating that effort and just tell people who want a binary distro
to use Solaris Express.
--
-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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:30 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long time"?
>>
>
> Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site doesn't
> mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the sources for
> OpenSolaris today, it does not install X, nor does it GNOME, nor does it
> CUPS, as a case in point.
>
That's by design. Why mirror all that open source on opensolaris.org?
What happens if they don't agree? Upstream code stays upstream and
OpenSolaris pulls from it. We do not want to fork, even accidentally.
> In fact, if we're lucky we can unpackage the tarball for the Xorg distribution
> on what is called OpenSolaris today.
>
>
>> Xorg release to OpenSolaris is coming up on the one year mark soon - it
>> went out at the end of March 2006. JDS/GNOME beat us by about 6 months.
>>
>
> Neither of which are actually functional in regards to OpenSolaris. Please
> don't hurt your hand while you're patting yourself on the back.;-)
>
>
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:29 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:30 pm, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:51 pm, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> How about "Look harder - they've all been in OpenSolaris for a long
> >> time"?
> >
> > Humor me more. Having the software located on the OpenSolaris site
> > doesn't mean that it's a part of the project. When you download the
> > sources for OpenSolaris today, it does not install X, nor does it GNOME,
> > nor does it CUPS, as a case in point.
>
> That's by design. Why mirror all that open source on opensolaris.org?
> What happens if they don't agree? Upstream code stays upstream and
> OpenSolaris pulls from it. We do not want to fork, even accidentally.
That's not the point Stephen, the point is that today Xorg is not a part of
the sources that I'm calling OpenSolaris, where AlanC is considering
everything to be on the OpenSolaris site to be what OpenSolaris is.
This is all fine and dandy, but this doesn't help folks download, install, and
use OpenSolaris. We don't have a distribution yet, however, the way Sun
markets it to the press and community, it's the open source version of
Solaris.
The packaging tools are on OpenSolaris also, but I don't think they're a part
of ON, so the package tools are not in the sources.
Most people that want to run OpenSolaris need to install Solaris Express
first. This is a distribution that includes Xorg, GNOME, CUPS, et al.
How come I don't see Sun market OpenSolaris as including Xorg?
--
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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 7:36 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> That's not the point Stephen, the point is that today Xorg is not a part of
> the sources that I'm calling OpenSolaris, where AlanC is considering
> everything to be on the OpenSolaris site to be what OpenSolaris is.
So you want all consolidations merged into one mega source tarball, that's
10 times the size of the current ON sources, takes days to build even on
the fastest machines, and has an incredibly complex build procedure since
each consolidation source is so different?
I think that would just drive people crazy and lead to calls to split it into
sensible sized chunks that developers can work with - one for ON, one for X,
one for GNOME, and so on.
--
-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: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:12 AM
in response to: aland
|
|
OpenSolaris is just source. You're confusing a distribution with
OpenSolaris. kernel.org is not a Linux distribution. You don't
download it and use it. You download it, get some other pieces, put it
all together, and you have a distribution. And if you don't want to go
to that much work, you get a pre-built distribution from someplace else
(Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, ....)
Same thing here, where the pre-built distributions are SXCE, Nexenta,
Belenix, SchilliX, MarTux, etc. Since you need source from several
places to build a usable distribution, yes, it's a bit of work. But
people are working on solving that problem as well.
You seem to want everything needed to build a distribution in one spot.
By design, we *don't* want that, since it would mean duplicating a lot
of open source communities out there (X.org, GNOME, ....).
Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
> That's not the point Stephen, the point is that today Xorg is not a part of
> the sources that I'm calling OpenSolaris, where AlanC is considering
> everything to be on the OpenSolaris site to be what OpenSolaris is.
>
> This is all fine and dandy, but this doesn't help folks download, install, and
> use OpenSolaris. We don't have a distribution yet, however, the way Sun
> markets it to the press and community, it's the open source version of
> Solaris.
>
> The packaging tools are on OpenSolaris also, but I don't think they're a part
> of ON, so the package tools are not in the sources.
>
> Most people that want to run OpenSolaris need to install Solaris Express
> first. This is a distribution that includes Xorg, GNOME, CUPS, et al.
>
> How come I don't see Sun market OpenSolaris as including Xorg?
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 3:52 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
> the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
> doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
> well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark.
indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many
things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of
stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc.
Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb
which will enforce every single putback to go through the community
review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux
kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by
thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input
but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often.
This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create
certain discipline among developers.
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
807
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 4:19 PM
in response to: erast
|
|
On Thu 01 Feb 2007 at 03:52PM, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
> > the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
> > doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
> > well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark.
>
> indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many
> things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of
> stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc.
I think these three things you name are each very different, and probably must
each be tackled by the people who influence them-- echoing Bryan's earlier
comment, ON development is not a borg, it's a bunch of people, with different
interested, affiliations, and knowledge. For example, you could ask me all
you want about the schedule of locked down builds, but I don't know the answer--
so, you and I are peers in ignorance about this topic.
So of those three things, I have a comment about only one of them, code reviews:
At least some code reviews are being published; for those in the community
interested in publishing their reviews and lacking a place to do it,
please see http://cr.grommit.com.
It'd be interesting to hear from the folks using cr.grommit.com whether they've
gotten substantive codereview feedback.
If someone would like to help with the web-aspects of cr.grommit.com,
we might be able to set up an RSS feed of incoming reviews and subscribe
planet.opensolaris.org to that. I would love to work with someone wanting
to create that with me. But I don't have the cycles to do the scripting
for that myself.
I know that the OpenSolaris web team is thinking about what online codereview
should look like (such as a "feed" based model so people can see reviews as they
are posted), and I've had some conversations with them on this front based on my
experience building cr.grommit.com.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp at eng dot sun dot com - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
824
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
cr.grommit.com (was GPLv3?)
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:39 AM
in response to: dp
|
|
>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Price <dp at eng dot sun dot com> writes:
Dan> It'd be interesting to hear from the folks using cr.grommit.com
Dan> whether they've gotten substantive codereview feedback.
Yes, definitely. Though I don't get much response to preliminary
webrevs.
mike
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
243
From:
Registered:
12/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: cr.grommit.com (was GPLv3?)
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:46 AM
in response to: kupfer
|
|
Mike Kupfer wrote:
>>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Price <dp at eng dot sun dot com> writes:
>
> Dan> It'd be interesting to hear from the folks using cr.grommit.com
> Dan> whether they've gotten substantive codereview feedback.
>
> Yes, definitely. Though I don't get much response to preliminary
> webrevs.
>
> mike
I've received good feedback as well from webrevs I've posted on
cr.grommit.com. cr.grommit.com is also useful when I'm sponsoring a
contribution and I made some changes (say for cstyle compliance) that I
want to show the contributor. Sure I could send a list of diffs, but I
found posting a webrev there easier.
Dan
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: cr.grommit.com (was GPLv3?)
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:53 AM
in response to: kupfer
|
|
Mike Kupfer writes:
> >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Price <dp at eng dot sun dot com> writes:
>
> Dan> It'd be interesting to hear from the folks using cr.grommit.com
> Dan> whether they've gotten substantive codereview feedback.
>
> Yes, definitely. Though I don't get much response to preliminary
> webrevs.
I've published quite a few things via cr.grommit.com, done my best to
document what I'm doing and why, and I've gotten pretty much zip in
reply.
At a guess, it seems that smallish changes attract bike-shed comments,
while larger ones float by silently like errant icebergs.
As to the larger point, I don't necessarily agree that "every" review
needs to go through a central repository. That sort of process just
doesn't scale well, particularly for something as large as ON. The
reviews get lost in the noise. Instead, for small changes, I find one
or a handful of known experts in the area and ask them.
Yeah, I agree that's not the most "open development" answer that one
could possibly muster, but I still think it needs to be part of the
long term direction.
(Perhaps if we had a nifty-keeno tool for organizing large batches of
in-progress reviews ... but, no.)
--
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
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: cr.grommit.com (was GPLv3?)
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 3:47 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson wrote:
> As to the larger point, I don't necessarily agree that "every" review
> needs to go through a central repository. That sort of process just
> doesn't scale well, particularly for something as large as ON. The
> reviews get lost in the noise. Instead, for small changes, I find one
> or a handful of known experts in the area and ask them.
>
> Yeah, I agree that's not the most "open development" answer that one
> could possibly muster, but I still think it needs to be part of the
> long term direction.
>
> (Perhaps if we had a nifty-keeno tool for organizing large batches of
> in-progress reviews ... but, no.)
I believe there might be the foundation of such a tool inside Sun that
the Solaris (ON specifically) sustaining organisation uses for "code
inspection" (as distinct from review). I'll ask my colleagues there
about how sophisticated this is, I know that it still uses the standard
webrev but there appears to be structure around the data.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,109
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:15 PM
in response to: erast
|
|
On Thursday 01 February 2007 03:52 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see
> > > some of
> >
> > the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun
> > is doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community
> > very well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the
> > dark.
>
> indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many
> things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of
> stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc.
>
> Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb
> which will enforce every single putback to go through the community
> review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux
> kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by
> thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input
> but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often.
>
> This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create
> certain discipline among developers.
Erast,
Very good point, hopefully we will get to a point in the future where it does
happen like 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:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:34 PM
in response to: erast
|
|
After the constitution is ratified, and the OGB is in place, and all the
source is in Mercurial outside the firewall, that next "big" thing for
OpenSolaris will be for the communities (a la the constitution) to
figure out what the process is to becoming a contributor and under what
rules code may be checked in.
It's all moving slower than I want, but it's moving. There's a lot of
infrastructure required to do all of this, and we're bumping into some
issues. (Ask Stephen Lau about the automounter sometime. :-)) But,
what you ask will happen.
Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
>> >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
>> the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
>> doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
>> well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark.
>>
>
> indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many
> things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of
> stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc.
>
> Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb
> which will enforce every single putback to go through the community
> review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux
> kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by
> thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input
> but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often.
>
> This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create
> certain discipline among developers.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
278
From:
Registered:
5/12/06
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:20 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
nice! I'm especially hoping to see review process to happen on mailing
lists. I think mail patch attachments would be ideal, so community
people could reply-to-all and post their comments with no-time spent.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 17:34 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> After the constitution is ratified, and the OGB is in place, and all the
> source is in Mercurial outside the firewall, that next "big" thing for
> OpenSolaris will be for the communities (a la the constitution) to
> figure out what the process is to becoming a contributor and under what
> rules code may be checked in.
>
> It's all moving slower than I want, but it's moving. There's a lot of
> infrastructure required to do all of this, and we're bumping into some
> issues. (Ask Stephen Lau about the automounter sometime. :-)) But,
> what you ask will happen.
>
>
>
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> >
> >> >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
> >> the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
> >> doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
> >> well when they do many of these things, so the community is in the dark.
> >>
> >
> > indeed, i don't know about others, but I feel that I do not see many
> > things which are going on inside of ON development. Like, schedule of
> > stabilization builds, code reviews, decisions made, etc.
> >
> > Also, it would be wonderful if Sun engineers invented a rule of thumb
> > which will enforce every single putback to go through the community
> > review before merging to the main tree, similar to what we see in Linux
> > kernel, where patches goes directly to the mailing list and reviewed by
> > thousands of kernel hackers. Not only it will increase community's input
> > but also will stimulate outsiders to commit more often.
> >
> > This would also help outsiders to understand ON code and will create
> > certain discipline among developers.
> >
> >
>
--
Erast
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: [Fwd: Re: GPLv3?]
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 11:30 PM
in response to: aland
|
|
>These are the same people that wonder why after close to 2 years, open source
>software that is in Sun's Solaris distribution are not in OpenSolaris. When
>they ask why Xorg, GNOME, CUPs, or any other technology that is included in
>Solaris is not in OpenSolaris at this time, I'm not sure what to say other
>than "Sun is slow", but maybe I should change that to, "you don't understand
>licensing" as a catch all...:-/
No; I find it strange that you'd even ask why such software is not
on OpenSolaris.org.
It's almost like asking "Why is GNOME not on kernel.org"?
In some cases, when we have substantially changed the software
or when it is deeply embedded in other parts, it des make sense.
In others, it doesn't.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
