|
Replies:
86
-
Last Post:
Feb 7, 2007 10:14 PM
by: jimgris
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 4:24 PM
|
|
In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting this
morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich Green
(Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in the
last few years about licenses and open source, especially
with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris thread.
His response was interesting, to say the least.
What follows is my (probably imperfect) take on his comments.
--------
o When Rich asked whether anyone thought that licensing
OpenSolaris under a version of the GPL would be a
bad thing, I was the only one in the room of ~80 people
to raise my hand (if even only tentatively). I'm not sure
if this says more about me or my co-workers :-) I also
wouldn't read too much into his asking of the question.
o The open source licensing arena is not a worthwhile place
to try to innovate. It doesn't matter if your new license is
technically better, being different is almost always worse
than whatever benefits you sought to gain. In particular,
being different means you automatically restrict the potential
audience for your code.
o One of the reasons Sun is open sourcing its software
portfolio is to get it used/reused by everyone (duh!). As
people use it, however they use it, Sun benefits by the
association. Sure, buying a $$million Black Box full of
Sun hardware because you really like Sun's Java Logo or
Solaris Express B56 would be one of the more valuable
associations :-), but there is also value in developers
using free downloads of Solaris Express, Schillix and
Nexenta. And in MacOS users using DTrace. And in Linux
distros using zfs.
o As a leader, it is not a bad thing when people follow.
In fact, it is really hard to be a leader with no followers.
As long as we continue innovating, making OpenSolaris the
best in the world, it is OK if Apple, RedHat and others
want to emulate and adapt the things we have done. After
all, this sort of thing tends to validate and reinforce
OpenSolaris' leadership position.
o As good as the Java community was, releasing Java under
the GPL made it better. Under the SCSL, the vibe in
the FOSS community was "Sun just doesn't get it". With
GPL, the feedback changed to "Finally, they get it."
--------
What does this mean in the context of OpenSolaris and GPLv3?
For myself, I don't know yet. Certainly there are potential
issues and pitfalls, but the "what ifs" make me pause:
What if OpenSolaris under GPLv3 was usable by a community
10x or 100x as large as the one we have today? What if
every Linux distro included the core OpenSolaris technologies?
What if the FSF endorsed OpenSolaris :-)
To me, OpenSolaris is much more than a distro built from the
ON consolidation. How much *more* it can be is really what we
are debating here.
Peace,
-John
Background: I've known Rich since he and I started at Sun
in '89 or so, and have worked with/for him in several positions.
He has, at various times, been in charge of Sun's compilers,
Project DOpE (Distributed Objects (pretty much) Everywhere),
Java, NetBeans, developer tools and Solaris. He is one of the
key executives driving Sun to Open Source its portfolio. As
Executive VP/Software, he is the person who is directly
responsible for funding the majority of OpenSolaris developers.
Oh, and he is not currently in my management chain :-)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 4:58 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher wrote:
> o When Rich asked whether anyone thought that licensing
> OpenSolaris under a version of the GPL would be a
> bad thing, I was the only one in the room of ~80 people
> to raise my hand (if even only tentatively). I'm not sure
> if this says more about me or my co-workers :-) I also
> wouldn't read too much into his asking of the question.
And what proportion of the audience really understood the question? And
of that number, what proportion actually cared enough to form an
opinion? And of that number, what proportion would be brave enough to
disagree with the speaker? Looks like you were the only one ;-)
Don't mistake silence for unanimous agreement.
> What if OpenSolaris under GPLv3 was usable by a community
> 10x or 100x as large as the one we have today? What if
> every Linux distro included the core OpenSolaris technologies?
> What if the FSF endorsed OpenSolaris :-)
OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a community 10x or 100x as
large as the one we have today. I really *don't* think the license is
the main impediment we face, I think all the other issues that have been
raised around ease of participation are *far* more important.
And if even we go GPLv3 it won't make any difference to whether or not
the bits go into Linux - GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, and Linus has
no way of switching to GPLv3 because he doesn't have any contributor
agreements, and he'd need them to switch license.
And if OpenSolaris is endorsed by the FSF - so what? I personally think
the FSF is mostly irrelevant to grass-roots open source people, and the
people who are already dissing us will just claim that we bought out the
FSF - you can't change paranoia by trying to pander to it. We'd get a 2
week flurry of press releases, and after that nobody would care. We
were beaten up for many, many years about the Java licensing, but I
can't see that releasing Java under GPLv2 has made everyone suddenly
want to have our (metaphorical) babies.
Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual license
- the potential for one license to be ripped off and the source forked
*incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important bit), the inability
to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion that dual-licensing
will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception" anyway?).
If Sun really wants to go GPLv3 with OpenSolaris, I think they should
just switch license entirely and ditch the CDDL. I really don't think
dual licensing is a good idea. And I don't see that switching to GPLv3
will fix the many issues we *should* be expending energy on.
To me, the interesting and helpful bits of this long, long discussion
have been about what we need to do as a community to to attract more
members, and what we need to do to make life easier for the members we
already have. As far as I'm concerned the licensing flamefest is really
an irrelevant and unnecessary distraction.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
James C. McPher...
James.McPherson@Sun....
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:05 PM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
[snip Alan's excellent posting]
+10000 from me.
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer
Sun Microsystems
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
129
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:43 PM
in response to: James C. McPher...
|
|
James C. McPherson wrote:
> Alan Burlison wrote:
> [snip Alan's excellent posting]
>
> +10000 from me.
>
> James C. McPherson
> --
> Solaris kernel software engineer
> Sun Microsystems
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
I'm not a developer/software engineer so I've kept quiet. But after
reading Alan Burlison's post I have to agree with him. Dual licensing
discussions are distraction and a waste of time. I use
OpenSolaris/Solaris exclusively so take my vote for what it's worth.
Can OpenSolaris.org change to include more people with different
talents? I think so, I'd love to contribute in a more meaningful way,
but trust me, you don't want me mucking about in your kernel!
An enthusiastic +1
John.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:02 AM
in response to: James C. McPher...
|
|
>Alan Burlison wrote:
>[snip Alan's excellent posting]
>
>+10000 from me.
<<1 from me (we can do shifts, right?)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
101
From:
IT
Registered:
9/21/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: G
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:23 PM
in response to: alanbur
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Yes,yes.A Community Free,Open and Independent,this could be the correct way to follow.Great Post Alan,Thank you!
+10000
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:28 PM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a community 10x or 100x as
> large as the one we have today. I really *don't* think the license is
> the main impediment we face, I think all the other issues that have
> been raised around ease of participation are *far* more important.
True, there are other issues, but we need to solve those regardless.
>
> And if even we go GPLv3 it won't make any difference to whether or not
> the bits go into Linux - GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, and Linus
> has no way of switching to GPLv3 because he doesn't have any
> contributor agreements, and he'd need them to switch license.
>
> And if OpenSolaris is endorsed by the FSF - so what? I personally
> think the FSF is mostly irrelevant to grass-roots open source people,
> and the people who are already dissing us will just claim that we
> bought out the FSF - you can't change paranoia by trying to pander to
> it. We'd get a 2 week flurry of press releases, and after that nobody
> would care. We were beaten up for many, many years about the Java
> licensing, but I can't see that releasing Java under GPLv2 has made
> everyone suddenly want to have our (metaphorical) babies.
The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>
> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
> license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
> source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
> bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
> that dual-licensing will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception"
> anyway?).
Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
talks about. If I wrote gpl.c, I can place upon it an assembly
exception that says, "when you link gpl.c with a Harpster licensed file,
don't force the Harpster licensed file to be GPL." Because I wrote and
own the original gpl.c, I can modify the terms of the license to be more
restrictive. (Or less restrictive depending upon your point of view.)
>
> If Sun really wants to go GPLv3 with OpenSolaris, I think they should
> just switch license entirely and ditch the CDDL. I really don't think
> dual licensing is a good idea. And I don't see that switching to
> GPLv3 will fix the many issues we *should* be expending energy on.
>
> To me, the interesting and helpful bits of this long, long discussion
> have been about what we need to do as a community to to attract more
> members, and what we need to do to make life easier for the members we
> already have. As far as I'm concerned the licensing flamefest is
> really an irrelevant and unnecessary distraction.
We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first
place -- and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are
still folks who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create
proprietary solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL does not.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:01 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>>
>>
>> And if OpenSolaris is endorsed by the FSF - so what? I personally
>> think the FSF is mostly irrelevant to grass-roots open source people,
>> and the people who are already dissing us will just claim that we
>> bought out the FSF - you can't change paranoia by trying to pander to
>> it. We'd get a 2 week flurry of press releases, and after that
>> nobody would care. We were beaten up for many, many years about the
>> Java licensing, but I can't see that releasing Java under GPLv2 has
>> made everyone suddenly want to have our (metaphorical) babies.
>
> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be
> successful, you want to reach out to as many communities as possible.
> The more friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>
How do we know when GPLv3 hasn't been finalised?
I'd be interested in knowing which big projects these are.
It might just be my perspective, but I couldn't care less about the
license, it isn't the reason why I haven't been able to contribute
more. I'd even go so far as to speculate that I'm not in a minority.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:04 AM
in response to: ian
|
|
Because some large projects have already pledged to use it. Samba comes
to mind......
Ian Collins wrote:
>
>>
> How do we know when GPLv3 hasn't been finalised?
>
> I'd be interested in knowing which big projects these are.
>
> It might just be my perspective, but I couldn't care less about the
> license, it isn't the reason why I haven't been able to contribute
> more. I'd even go so far as to speculate that I'm not in a minority.
>
> Ian
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:27 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> How do we know when GPLv3 hasn't been finalised?
>
> Because some large projects have already pledged to use it. Samba
> comes to mind......
>
But surely the license only becomes an issue for projects that would be
integrated into Open Solaris code, rather than packages that we already
bring in and bundle?
I guess there are components of Samba that could be integrated to
improve interoperation with windows, but are they worth the complexity
of a dual license?
Is there a 'hit list' of GPL code that could be integrated if their
license permitted this?
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:36 AM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a
> license. Suppose I
> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual
> licensed under CDDL
> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster
> license, a
> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
> Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would
> force harpster.c to
> also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature
> of GPL everyone
> talks about. If I wrote gpl.c, I can place upon it
> an assembly
> exception that says, "when you link gpl.c with a
> Harpster licensed file,
> don't force the Harpster licensed file to be GPL."
> Because I wrote and
> wn the original gpl.c, I can modify the terms of the
> license to be more
> restrictive. (Or less restrictive depending upon
> your point of view.)
How would FSF likely feel about GPLv3 modified by an "assembly exception"?
And even if they wouldn't get publically upset about it, what about the
difference between GPL being per-program while CDDL is per-file?
And what happens even with a tear-off involving something dual-licensed
with both licenses per-file? The original of foo.c may be dual-licensed,
but someone could fork it (still dual-licensed) to now invoke extended
functionality kept in the separate (non dual-licenced) bar.c. You can't
pick up their change, then (at least not without reimplementing their
bar.c file).
In my seldom-humble view, the real solution would be just work more
with folks using compatible licenses (the *BSDs, for example), and forget
about trying to exchange code with the (however well-meaning) ideologues
of the FSF and the fans of their viral license, until they grow up. They've
more than achieved the realistic aspects of their objectives anyway, in
that there's multiple open OS's and lots of open apps out there.
Hoping to achieve more idealistic goals (i.e. opening _all_ software that
is distributed beyond the originator's organization) is IMO unrealistic
because even if every existing OS and app that was distributed was GPL
(but with the shared libs or other environment interfaces LGPL), that still
not only wouldn't preclude new proprietary apps, but wouldn't even preclude
extensions of the environment (servers on a microkernel like HURD or interposers or LD_PRELOAD wrappers on something more conventional like
Solaris or Linux). Look at libusb; effectively, it allows moving what used
to be specialized kernel driver functionality into user space. The line
between environment and application is blurred enough that one can no
longer demand the former be open and yet tolerate the latter closed. And
proprietary apps IMO will _never_ go away, insofar as open development
models will not work with _every_ opportunity. So I think they've done just
about all they can in terms of forcing code open. OTOH, I think they're
right on track with wanting to extend the notion of open source to deal
with patent and DRM issues.
Choice of venue could be argued equally on behalf of the author and
the user, but I see the author as the scarcer resource, so the whole DFSG
position on that seems strange to me, unless it were refined to deal with
specific problems, i.e. oppose only venues where the user had pretty much
zero chance of winning. Their (DSFG) dissident test, although admirable in
theory, also has problems when dealing with a composite work where
some accountability is needed to preserve reliability and reputation,
although for some specific works, it might be appropriate. And so on.
So most of the more ideologically-motivated open source license terms have
narrow circumstances where they're very useful, but mostly they're a
barrier to collaborating communities (which of themselves probably result
in more code being opened), and thus arguably self-limiting. I think
there needs to be a recognition of that, keeping the more problematic
terms confined to cases where they're actually an issue, without creating
undue barriers to collaboration. In that regard, I think the CDDL
reflects a greater state of maturity (pragmatism as enlightened self-interest,
in this case) than the GPL, just as most people start out liberal but end up
middle-of-the-road or slightly conservative (no, not just a different kind of
ideologue still out to impose their ways on others!) later on in life.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:08 AM
in response to: rlhamil
|
|
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
[snip]
+lots ;-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:06 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure they
are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by "combine
with Solaris". We already have a significant amount of GPLv2 code
shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously isn't an
impediment. Any existing candidate projects will be GPLv2, so as I
understand it they won't be able to "combine" with a GPLv3 Solaris
unless they switch to GPLv3 first, and we won't know the level of uptake
of GPLv3 until it's been in existence for some time.
> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
What is to stop someone producing an OpenSolaris distribution where the
only significant difference is that they've ripped out the CDDL? That
would seem to be fairly easy to do, and I don't think it would be a good
thing if it happened.
> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
> Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
> also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
> talks about. If I wrote gpl.c, I can place upon it an assembly
> exception that says, "when you link gpl.c with a Harpster licensed file,
> don't force the Harpster licensed file to be GPL." Because I wrote and
> own the original gpl.c, I can modify the terms of the license to be more
> restrictive. (Or less restrictive depending upon your point of view.)
If we "neuter" the GPLv3 license with an assembly exception we'll
immediately be accused of playing marketing games with licensing, which
will defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. In fact it will make
things *considerably* worse, not just in terms of the negative PR hit
we'll take, but also in terms of the unnecessary complexity and
confusion we will have saddled ourselves with.
There is a direct analogue we can look at - MySQL is dual-licensed under
both GPLv2 and a Commercial license. It's a cause of great confusion to
anyone trying to use MySQL, and I don't see hordes of people switching
from Postgres (BSD license) to MySQL as a result of MySQL being
dual-licensed, in fact I suspect the flow is the other way - anyone who
want's an open source database will pick Postgres, not MySQL as MySQL is
only pseudo-open at best. For GPL purists the only acceptable license
is pure GPL. A dual-license, especially one that contains a crippled
GPLv3 is more likely to drive them away than it is to attract them. By
sticking to pure CDDL we can make a reasoned defence of what I consider
to be a very good license. I strongly suspect bolting GPLv3 on the side
will only make things worse, not better.
> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first
> place -- and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are
> still folks who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create
> proprietary solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL does not.
If you force the GPLv3 issue against the wishes of the community you are
going to alienate many of them anyway.
If in 12-24 months time a significant proportion of the open source
world has switched to GPLv3, then that would be a good time to consider
a switch for Solaris. The upsides of switching Solaris to GPLv3 at this
point in time are massively outweighed by the downsides. For now I
think we should leave the OpenSolaris licensing alone.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:24 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure they
> are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by "combine
> with Solaris". We already have a significant amount of GPLv2 code
> shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously isn't an
> impediment.
For userland, correct. For the kernel, nope.
> Any existing candidate projects will be GPLv2, so as I understand it
> they won't be able to "combine" with a GPLv3 Solaris unless they
> switch to GPLv3 first, and we won't know the level of uptake of GPLv3
> until it's been in existence for some time.
True, unless they say "GPLv2 or greater..."
And don't forget that most of the GNU code is copyrighted by the FSF.
What you think of us the Linux userland will instantly switch to GPLv3
the day the GPLv3 license is final.
>
>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they
>> maintain that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what
>> happens if their new incompatible changes don't work with the changes
>> they pull from opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't
>> imagine it happening.
>
> What is to stop someone producing an OpenSolaris distribution where
> the only significant difference is that they've ripped out the CDDL?
> That would seem to be fairly easy to do, and I don't think it would be
> a good thing if it happened.
Nothing. Anyone can produce a distribution. In fact, I encourage
that. But what I think you really meant is, "what happens if someone
creates their own source repository that contains all of the OpenSolaris
source but only with the GPL license?" Again, nothing prevents someone
from doing that, but how would they maintain it? Most of the people
that really know OpenSolaris work at Sun and will continue to work on
opensolaris.org. It's not practical to have a source fork.
>
> If we "neuter" the GPLv3 license with an assembly exception we'll
> immediately be accused of playing marketing games with licensing,
> which will defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. In fact it will
> make things *considerably* worse, not just in terms of the negative PR
> hit we'll take, but also in terms of the unnecessary complexity and
> confusion we will have saddled ourselves with.
>
> There is a direct analogue we can look at - MySQL is dual-licensed
> under both GPLv2 and a Commercial license. It's a cause of great
> confusion to anyone trying to use MySQL, and I don't see hordes of
> people switching from Postgres (BSD license) to MySQL as a result of
> MySQL being dual-licensed, in fact I suspect the flow is the other way
> - anyone who want's an open source database will pick Postgres, not
> MySQL as MySQL is only pseudo-open at best. For GPL purists the only
> acceptable license is pure GPL. A dual-license, especially one that
> contains a crippled GPLv3 is more likely to drive them away than it is
> to attract them. By sticking to pure CDDL we can make a reasoned
> defence of what I consider to be a very good license. I strongly
> suspect bolting GPLv3 on the side will only make things worse, not
> better.
I agree that if dual licensing were to happen, explaining how the
license works is the biggest hurdle. Creative Commons did an excellent
job of explaining their license to "average folk". We could learn from
them.
>
>> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first
>> place -- and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There
>> are still folks who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and
>> create proprietary solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL
>> does not.
>
> If you force the GPLv3 issue against the wishes of the community you
> are going to alienate many of them anyway.
I agree, which is why I'm not going to and why we're having this
discussion in the open right now.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:46 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure they
>> are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by "combine
>> with Solaris". We already have a significant amount of GPLv2 code
>> shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously isn't an
>> impediment.
> For userland, correct. For the kernel, nope.
As you said yourself in a later post, Linux is staying GPLv2, so I don't
understand which kernel we would be able to include code from if we
switched to GPLv3, but perhaps I'm missing something...
> And don't forget that most of the GNU code is copyrighted by the FSF.
> What you think of us the Linux userland will instantly switch to GPLv3
> the day the GPLv3 license is final.
But we can (and do) already use the GNU userland code under GPLv2, and
when it switches to GPLv3 we'll be able to carry on doing so. What does
switching Solaris to GPLv3 gain us in this scenario?
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:23 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>>> That's an interesting collection of assertions, but I'm not sure
>>> they are entirely correct. It really depends on what you mean by
>>> "combine with Solaris". We already have a significant amount of
>>> GPLv2 code shipped with Solaris, so Solaris not being GPL obviously
>>> isn't an impediment.
>
>> For userland, correct. For the kernel, nope.
>
> As you said yourself in a later post, Linux is staying GPLv2, so I
> don't understand which kernel we would be able to include code from if
> we switched to GPLv3, but perhaps I'm missing something...
We would get the entire GNU userland, for one. Samba, who says their
going v3, will be easier to integrate as well. Kernel, not so much.
>
>> And don't forget that most of the GNU code is copyrighted by the
>> FSF. What you think of us the Linux userland will instantly switch
>> to GPLv3 the day the GPLv3 license is final.
>
> But we can (and do) already use the GNU userland code under GPLv2, and
> when it switches to GPLv3 we'll be able to carry on doing so. What
> does switching Solaris to GPLv3 gain us in this scenario?
Makes it easier. But the big boon would be in mindshare. I'm not
convinced that a dual-license would dramatically increase the number of
OpenSolaris developers (relative small number), but I believe it would
increase the number of developers developing apps for OpenSolaris and
increase the user base (those people using an OpenSolaris distro), which
is a huge number.
--
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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:34 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>We would get the entire GNU userland, for one. Samba, who says their
>going v3, will be easier to integrate as well. Kernel, not so much.
We can use that already. So what is the point in dual licensing.
We are already integrating GNU userland. (in an optional directory)
>Makes it easier. But the big boon would be in mindshare. I'm not
>convinced that a dual-license would dramatically increase the number of
>OpenSolaris developers (relative small number), but I believe it would
>increase the number of developers developing apps for OpenSolaris and
>increase the user base (those people using an OpenSolaris distro), which
>is a huge number.
How do you make something which is "no problem" easier?
Developing for Solaris requires them to download and install it;
that's not going to become easier. Bittorrents would make that
easier.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:14 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> As you said yourself in a later post, Linux is staying GPLv2, so I
>> don't understand which kernel we would be able to include code from if
>> we switched to GPLv3, but perhaps I'm missing something...
> We would get the entire GNU userland, for one. Samba, who says their
> going v3, will be easier to integrate as well. Kernel, not so much.
I thought we already could get all the GNU userland stuff we cared about
- isn't that what PSARC/2007/048 is for?
>> But we can (and do) already use the GNU userland code under GPLv2, and
>> when it switches to GPLv3 we'll be able to carry on doing so. What
>> does switching Solaris to GPLv3 gain us in this scenario?
> Makes it easier. But the big boon would be in mindshare. I'm not
> convinced that a dual-license would dramatically increase the number of
> OpenSolaris developers (relative small number), but I believe it would
> increase the number of developers developing apps for OpenSolaris and
> increase the user base (those people using an OpenSolaris distro), which
> a huge number.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. The suggestion has been for a
"neutered" GPLv3, and that isn't going to attract people, it's going to
drive them away.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:19 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
>you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
>friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
Assertion without proof. Who would this bring to our community?
There are some indication that it would scare off others too.
And, perhaps, can we in fairness in this discussion say that we're
using "GPLv3 with the assembly exception"; that makes GPLv3 much
more like the CDDL; and I'm sure that the community isn't stupid.
If they like that property of the GPL, then they won't stand for
the exception.
Code under GPLv2 cannot be brought in; code under GPLv3 cannot
be brought in. The only thing that can happen is that code under
the GPLv3 w/ assembly exception can be taken to a GPLv3 environment
(without exceptions) and such changes can subsequently not be taken
back and help improve OpenSolaris.
How does this benefit OpenSolaris?
Similarly, if they *dislike* the CDDL so much, they won't
contribute under the CDDL and so their contributions will be
useless for the whole of OpenSolaris.
Regardless of whether this license brings in more people or scares
people away, the best thing to grow the community is focusing on
the tasks at hand:
- get the consitution ratified
- get the OGB elected
- get the mechanisms up and running so the barrier to commit
is lowered.
>Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
>that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
>new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
>opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
That doesn't mean that the risk does not exist; and the fork may take
different forms: forks of parts of the source code. There's no need
to fork all of the source code for OpenSolaris to be hurt.
>An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
>have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
>and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
>proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
>Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
>also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
>talks about. If I wrote gpl.c, I can place upon it an assembly
>exception that says, "when you link gpl.c with a Harpster licensed file,
>don't force the Harpster licensed file to be GPL." Because I wrote and
>own the original gpl.c, I can modify the terms of the license to be more
>restrictive. (Or less restrictive depending upon your point of view.)
So Sun is not really proposing to use the GPL, Sun is just pretending?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:55 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> >The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
> >Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
> >with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
> >you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
> >friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>
> Assertion without proof. Who would this bring to our community?
> There are some indication that it would scare off others too.
If Sun did dual license OpenSolaris wihout a proof that this would
really give us some benefits, I would call this "Vorrauseilenden
Gehorsam" (anticipatory obedience). The history proves that this usually don't
helps the person doing it but the only person who did "request" it
and ther eis usuallo absolutely no need for it.
> Code under GPLv2 cannot be brought in; code under GPLv3 cannot
> be brought in. The only thing that can happen is that code under
> the GPLv3 w/ assembly exception can be taken to a GPLv3 environment
> (without exceptions) and such changes can subsequently not be taken
> back and help improve OpenSolaris.
> How does this benefit OpenSolaris?
Code under GPLv2 cannot be brought in in the general case where someone
likes to e.g. use parts of a GPLd driver and put them into a CDDLd driver
as this would create a "derived work".
There are many areas where GPLv2 code and CDDL code may be used together
already. If there really was a potential benefit, then we did see e.g.
ZFS inside Linux (because this is already allowed by GPLv2 and CDDL) but
we would not see real "mergers". In such a case, it may be usefull to discuss
"working on the license" but it seems that the reason is rather political
and a license change would not buy us anything.
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:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:32 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>> with OpenSolaris more***sily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
>> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
>> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>>
>
> Assertion without proof.
Likewise your argument as well, but actual data is nearly impossible to
obtain until after the fact, so let's continue with our current working
theory.
> Who would this bring to our community?
>
The entire GNU community for one.
> There are some indication that it would scare off others too.
>
True.
> And, perhaps, can we in fairness in this discussion say that we're
> using "GPLv3 with the assembly exception"; that makes GPLv3 much
> more like the CDDL; and I'm sure that the community isn't stupid.
> If they like that property of the GPL, then they won't stand for
> the exception.
>
> Code under GPLv2 cannot be brought in; code under GPLv3 cannot
> be brought in. The only thing that can happen is that code under
> the GPLv3 w/ assembly exception can be taken to a GPLv3 environment
> (without exceptions) and such changes can subsequently not be taken
> back and help improve OpenSolaris.
> How does this benefit OpenSolaris?
>
We already bring in GPLv2 code. So we must therefore limit this
discussion to the kernel where I expect contributions to remain
relatively low away.
> Similarly, if they *dislike* the CDDL so much, they won't
> contribute under the CDDL and so their contributions will be
> useless for the whole of OpenSolaris.
>
> Regardless of whether this license brings in more people or scares
> people away, the best thing to grow the community is focusing on
> the tasks at hand:
> - get the consitution ratified
> - get the OGB elected
> - get the mechanisms up and running so the barrier to commit
> is lowered.
>
Yes! So what's holding you up? ;-)
>
>
>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
>> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
>> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
>> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
>>
>
> That doesn't mean that the risk does not exist; and the fork may take
> different forms: forks of parts of the source code. There's no need
> to fork all of the source code for OpenSolaris to be hurt.
>
Welcome to the world of open development. People will take our code.
That's good. In fact, it's happening already. Apple's XCode
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a kick-*** front-end
for their version of DTrace. I don't see them contributing that back to
OpenSolaris.....
--
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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:45 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>> Assertion without proof.
>Likewise your argument as well, but actual data is nearly impossible to
>obtain until after the fact, so let's continue with our current working
>theory.
Your working theory. Not "our" working theory.
My working theory is "alienating 30% of the current community;
little or no influx of new people.
>> Who would this bring to our community?
>>
>The entire GNU community for one.
Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do
you mean the FSF?
>We already bring in GPLv2 code. So we must therefore limit this
>discussion to the kernel where I expect contributions to remain
>relatively low away.
No; we need to limit it to much of the core OS: the kernel *and*
libraries.
>Yes! So what's holding you up? ;-)
So, what' sthe rush about the license change? Do you want to
be on stage when Richard Stallman announces GPLv3?
>Welcome to the world of open development. People will take our code.
>That's good. In fact, it's happening already. Apple's XCode
>(http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a kick-*** front-end
>for their version of DTrace. I don't see them contributing that back to
>OpenSolaris.....
No, that's just fine; but they can already do that. But they can't
publish the results without also allowing us to take the modification
back; any dual license situation allows for just that. It adds needless
complexity and needless risk of irreversible forking.
And for what, a few minutes of PR?
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:20 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>>> Who would this bring to our community?
>>>
>>>
>> The entire GNU community for one.
>>
>
> Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do
> you mean the FSF?
>
Yes.
>
>> We already bring in GPLv2 code. So we must therefore limit this
>> discussion to the kernel where I expect contributions to remain
>> relatively low away.
>>
>
> No; we need to limit it to much of the core OS: the kernel *and*
> libraries.
>
Well, some libraries, yes.
>
>> Yes! So what's holding you up? ;-)
>>
>
> So, what' sthe rush about the license change? Do you want to
> be on stage when Richard Stallman announces GPLv3?
>
No, I meant "what's holding up the OGB elections and constitution
ratification?" (I'm being cheeky here. :-))
>
>> Welcome to the world of open development. People will take our code.
>> That's good. In fact, it's happening already. Apple's XCode
>> (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a kick-*** front-end
>> for their version of DTrace. I don't see them contributing that back to
>> OpenSolaris.....
>>
>
> No, that's just fine; but they can already do that. But they can't
> publish the results without also allowing us to take the modification
> back; any dual license situation allows for just that. It adds needless
> complexity and needless risk of irreversible forking.
>
I'm not following. They don't necessarily have to publish their
changes. Remember that CDDL works on file boundaries. As long as their
changes are in separate files, they can keep them proprietary. Dual
licensing doesn't change this situation at all. That was my point.
Your fear of a fork has already happened. Dual licensing won't make
that better, but it won't make it worse either.
--
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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:07 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>> Sorry, which community is that? There is no such thing. Do
>> you mean the FSF?
>>
>Yes.
I like to compare the FSF to the abolishionists and the suffragettes;
the latter two are certainly irrelevant now but the FSF is not far
behind. I'm not surprised that the FSF wants Sun's backing; but I
don't think they bring to the party what you think they bring to the
party.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:42 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
On Feb 2, 2007, at 20:07, Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> I like to compare the FSF to the abolishionists and the suffragettes;
> the latter two are certainly irrelevant now but the FSF is not far
> behind. I'm not surprised that the FSF wants Sun's backing; but I
> don't think they bring to the party what you think they bring to the
> party.
The FSF exists, is the holder of the copyright to a huge body of
code, is able to rightly claim support from a vast number of people
(especially outside North America), and is certainly not irrelevant -
or if it is, so are we. I assert as a consequence that they remain a
large influential movement in the world of software. As the saying
goes, "some of my best friends are FSF members."
They are indeed motivated strongly by an ideological outlook that
associates a precise and controversial meaning to "freedom" - one I
know inflames quite a few people on this list. While some here have
associated them with "Linux" that outlook is untrue. They speak of
the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached by many, many
FSF members and supporters around the world who would welcome the
chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS, licensed in a way
they felt ethically able to use, so that they could cut the cord that
binds them to Linux.
Folk here have laughed at their outlook and some have ridiculed their
ethics, but the truth is a passion for "Free as in freedom" drives
them and has resulted in a global movement that is able to change
government policy in South America and elsewhere, drive OLPC and make
corporations rethink their strategies. So please don't write them off
this way.
So what do they bring to the party? They bring a passionate group of
innovators, geeks, radicals, advocates, hobbyists - enthusiasts -
who, if the contacts I have personally had are representative, are
eagerly waiting to divert their energy to the promotion, use and
development of OpenSolaris as the kernel to the GNU Operating System.
That cannot be and is not the only factor, but it's one quite a lot
of us find hard to admit. But in my experience it's true.
Plenty of people have asked what a GPLv3 dual license would bring to
the OpenSolaris project. It would bring a mix of positives and
negatives, just as OpenSolaris now is a mix of positives and
negatives. The challenge for us as a community is to hear and measure
all the positives and negatives fairly and reach something
approaching consensus. Perhaps via the new OGB when it gets elected
(and how /is/ that voting software coming on?)
I've read voices in these threads who regard talking about something
they don't agree with as a waste of time, but I'm very pleased Sun
decided to ask for the views of the OpenSolaris community before
acting. I'm (just about) following the discussion and it's often
enlightening - thank-you to the ~ 13 people who have spoken up. I
would love to hear some more views.
S.
PS: For the record, I have not made up my mind - I can see some of
those positives and negatives and am still weighing them.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:59 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
> The FSF exists, is the holder of the copyright to a huge body of code,
> is able to rightly claim support from a vast number of people
> (especially outside North America), and is certainly not irrelevant - or
> if it is, so are we. I assert as a consequence that they remain a large
> influential movement in the world of software. As the saying goes, "some
> of my best friends are FSF members."
>
> They are indeed motivated strongly by an ideological outlook that
> associates a precise and controversial meaning to "freedom" - one I know
> inflames quite a few people on this list. While some here have
> associated them with "Linux" that outlook is untrue. They speak of the
> "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached by many, many FSF
> members and supporters around the world who would welcome the chance to
> have an alternative kernel for that OS, licensed in a way they felt
> ethically able to use, so that they could cut the cord that binds them
> to Linux.
>
> Folk here have laughed at their outlook and some have ridiculed their
> ethics, but the truth is a passion for "Free as in freedom" drives them
> and has resulted in a global movement that is able to change government
> policy in South America and elsewhere, drive OLPC and make corporations
> rethink their strategies. So please don't write them off this way.
>
> So what do they bring to the party? They bring a passionate group of
> innovators, geeks, radicals, advocates, hobbyists - enthusiasts - who,
> if the contacts I have personally had are representative, are eagerly
> waiting to divert their energy to the promotion, use and development of
> OpenSolaris as the kernel to the GNU Operating System. That cannot be
> and is not the only factor, but it's one quite a lot of us find hard to
> admit. But in my experience it's true.
They why haven't we heard anything at all from them directly on this
list? As with any form of politics, it's necessary to put your case to
the electorate if you want them to support you. I've seen no evidence
so far of them doing this. If they want to be part of the OpenSolaris
community they need to engage directly with the OpenSolaris community,
not send cryptic smoke signals that we are supposed to somehow
interpret. As you are obviously well aware, open source communities are
driven from the bottom up, not the top down, so if they want to win
people over they need to engage at the grass-roots level, and they of
all groups should understand this implicitly.
It seems to me (as others have said) they they will gain far more from
Solaris going GPLv3 than we will, so it's hardly surprising they are in
favour, and by-and-large we aren't.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
US
Registered:
12/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 5:18 PM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> The FSF exists, is the holder of the copyright to a huge body of code,
> is able to rightly claim support from a vast number of people
> (especially outside North America), and is certainly not irrelevant -
> or if it is, so are we. I assert as a consequence that they remain a
> large influential movement in the world of software. As the saying
> goes, "some of my best friends are FSF members."
>
> They are indeed motivated strongly by an ideological outlook that
> associates a precise and controversial meaning to "freedom" - one I
> know inflames quite a few people on this list. While some here have
> associated them with "Linux" that outlook is untrue. They speak of the
> "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached by many, many FSF
> members and supporters around the world who would welcome the chance
> to have an alternative kernel for that OS, licensed in a way they felt
> ethically able to use, so that they could cut the cord that binds them
> to Linux.
I've been around open source before it was called that, and I hate to
say that I have never met many these people, or seen their presence on
conferences or internet forums. The people who I did see that cared
about the license so much that they made it their main reason for
picking an OS were few and far between, and less than the "13" people
you mention here (implying that they are not representative of the
OpenSolaris community).
I have met lots of Linux fans, *BSD enthusiasts, OpenSolaris adepts. But
no "GNU operating system" fans.
I respect the FSF, but I strongly doubt that they are a major driving
point in operating system choice at this point. The GNU/Hurd example has
been given as a counterpoint.
I certainly don't doubt that you came away with the impression that this
is a substantial group of people, but I believe that impression may be
wrong.
- Frank
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 5:29 PM
in response to: fvdl
|
|
On Feb 3, 2007, at 01:18, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> I respect the FSF, but I strongly doubt that they are a major
> driving point in operating system choice at this point. The GNU/
> Hurd example has been given as a counterpoint.
I respect that assertion and your experiences (although I believe the
GNU/Hurd thing is a sideline, the Linux and BSD kernels are the
things used in GNU/OS). However, I have testified in front of a
government hearing in Venezuela (to give one concrete example) and
heard the way the FSF supporters framed the debate to the exclusion
of all else.
So our experiences differ and as I sift the evidence I'm not willing
to rule them out like this.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 5:41 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps <webmink at sun dot com> wrote:
> Plenty of people have asked what a GPLv3 dual license would bring to
> the OpenSolaris project. It would bring a mix of positives and
> negatives, just as OpenSolaris now is a mix of positives and
> negatives. The challenge for us as a community is to hear and measure
> all the positives and negatives fairly and reach something
> approaching consensus. Perhaps via the new OGB when it gets elected
> (and how /is/ that voting software coming on?)
I still do not see that possible benefits from dual licensing OpenSolaris
would outweight the problems.
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:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 5:51 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
On Feb 3, 2007, at 13:41, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I still do not see that possible benefits from dual licensing
> OpenSolaris
> would outweight the problems.
You may well be right. I'm not convinced we've had the positive and
inclusive discussion needed to reach a conclusion yet.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 9:49 PM
in response to: webmink
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> They speak of
> the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
> by many, many
> FSF members and supporters around the world who would
> welcome the
> chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
> licensed in a way
> they felt ethically able to use, so that they could
> cut the cord that
> binds them to Linux.
Then I doubt they will want to be here, since they will probably be "ethically offended" by the Assembly Exception that any GPLv3 license OpenSolaris would possibly use would have to have. Just as others have mentioned before, because we can't use the GPLv3 as is, we would likely just be blown off as a marketing ploy and the purists would still hate us.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Phipps
Simon.Phipps@Sun.COM
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
(was Re: [Fwd: Re:
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 10:09 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Feb 4, 2007, at 05:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> They speak of the "GNU Operating System" and I have been approached
>> by many, many FSF members and supporters around the world who would
>> welcome the chance to have an alternative kernel for that OS,
>> licensed in a way they felt ethically able to use, so that they could
>> cut the cord that binds them to Linux.
>
> Then I doubt they will want to be here, since they will probably be
> "ethically offended" by the Assembly Exception that any GPLv3
> license OpenSolaris would possibly use would have to have. Just as
> others have mentioned before, because we can't use the GPLv3 as is,
> we would likely just be blown off as a marketing ploy and the
> purists would still hate us.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? We are using an
"assembly exception" with the Java platform and GPLv2 - one written
by the FSF for the Classpath project. Since the GPLv3 is constructed
explicitly to allow the use of exceptions to produce compatible but
different licenses by modifying the terms of the GPLv3, I expect use
of exceptions to become more common.
Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a
combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to
approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception
language we use.
Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as pessimistic. The FSF
members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere near as random as
people have been suggesting on this list.
S.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 2:13 AM
in response to: Simon Phipps
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace
> the LGPL with a
> combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would
> expect us to
> approach the FSF and get their advice and support for
> the exception
> language we use.
>
> Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as
> pessimistic. The FSF
> members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere
> near as random as
> people have been suggesting on this list.
>
> S.
Yes, I'm aware of what they're doing with the GPLv3. However, considering the fsf themselves urges people to not use the LGPL whenever possible, I find it hard to believe they really have the best interests at heart whenever they don't even like their own license.
Not only that, they've always said in the past that it is better for people to use "standard license terms" and that exception clauses are "effectively a modification of the license." [1]
Additionally, some people have said that the FSF has been discouraging the use of exception clauses due to their refusal to provide a standard way to do it. [2]
The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I believe you're required to allow people to do this.
So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license situation with a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't...
Not only that, members of the debian-legal mailing list have claimed that "GPL+exception" code cannot be linked against "pure GPL" code [3]. So again, what benefit would this bring us? We wouldn't be able to link against "pure GPLv3" code since we wouldn't really be that way. So we would still have some of the same issues we do today...
Finally, yes, there are other projects that have done the "exception thing" and it has actually upset some "GPL purists", are they part of the FSF? I don't think so, but I was never talking about official FSF organization employees.
Some example of angst over GPL + exception:
See comments left on this project:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnutls/
A whole thread over it on the Apache lists:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200512.mbox/%3c43921AC6 dot 3080706 at dedasys dot com%3e
Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:
1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception is removable
2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL" licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)
3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have
You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking about licensing when there are so many other things to address that are far more crucial to the success of this project?
-Shawn
[1] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050325novalis.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
[3] http://groups.google.com.au/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_thread/thread/aca77888801996f6/2ad34b376ecae587?lnk=st&q=%22not+really+gpl%22+exception&rnum=1&hl=en#2ad34b376ecae587
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like
to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 4:48 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Shawn Walker wrote:
> Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:
>
> 1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the
> exception is removable 2) GPL+exception being essentially
> incompatible with "pure GPL" licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this
> somehow?) 3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have
>
> You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking about
> licensing when there are so many other things to address that are far
> more crucial to the success of this project?
Thanks for the nice summary of the issues with exception clauses, and +1
to the last paragraph :-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 5:09 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
I will dare to stray into FOSS licensing for a short time without
protective clothing but
(a) I can't keep doing it or my lawyers will bet me senseless on Monday
(b) I am required to observe that nothing here is intended as, or
should be construed to be, legal advice, it is all my opinions alone.
On Feb 4, 2007, at 10:13, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a
>> combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to
>> approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception
>> language we use.
>>
>> Based on this evidence I am nowhere near as pessimistic. The FSF
>> members who matter (actual developers) are nowhere near as random as
>> people have been suggesting on this list.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of what they're doing with the GPLv3. However,
> considering the fsf themselves urges people to not use the LGPL
> whenever possible, I find it hard to believe they really have the
> best interests at heart whenever they don't even like their own
> license.
> Not only that, they've always said in the past that it is better
> for people to use "standard license terms" and that exception
> clauses are "effectively a modification of the license."
Yes, Mr Stallman's antipathy for his own license has struck many as
contradictory over the years. However, he has taken the time during
the GPLv3 drafting process to propose an LGPLv3 which turns out
actually to be the GPLv3 plus an extensive assembly exception[1].
This has signalled to some of us that the path to compatibility (or
at least co-existence) lays in the direction of use of exceptions.
Indeed, section 7 of the current draft[2] (this will change in the
next draft BTW) appears to be a list providing the scope for
acceptable exceptions.
> Additionally, some people have said that the FSF has been
> discouraging the use of exception clauses due to their refusal to
> provide a standard way to do it.
As the evidence I cite above indicates, that does not appear to be
the case (any more, if it was before, which I am not so sure).
> The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing
> preventing redistributors of the software from removing that
> clause. In fact, I believe you're required to allow people to do this.
>
> So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically
> relicensed under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a
> dual-license situation with a single license! Do we really want
> this mess? I don't...
I don't see it as a mess. The reason the assembly exception will be
present is to allow the distribution of combinations of code under
incompatible licenses. Remove the exception (which as you say has to
be possible) and distribution is no longer permitted. I believe this
would pose a barrier to almost all potential abusers.
> Not only that, members of the debian-legal mailing list have
> claimed that "GPL+exception" code cannot be linked against "pure
> GPL" code [3]. So again, what benefit would this bring us? We
> wouldn't be able to link against "pure GPLv3" code since we
> wouldn't really be that way. So we would still have some of the
> same issues we do today...
I am sure there would be the same sort of flamefest on debian-legal
as we've seen here. I don't believe that would be sufficient either
to stop a Debian-based GNU/OpenSolaris (Nexenta++ - or "Solubuntu",
perhaps?) In the main I'm not too worried about meeting the demands
of self-appointed pseudo-lawyers unless I can do so without
substantial compromise. I /am/ interested in accommodating as many of
the philosophical outlooks of the FOSS movement within the
OpenSolaris community.
>
> Finally, yes, there are other projects that have done the
> "exception thing" and it has actually upset some "GPL purists", are
> they part of the FSF? I don't think so, but I was never talking
> about official FSF organization employees.
>
> Some example of angst over GPL + exception:
>
> See comments left on this project:
> http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnutls/
>
> A whole thread over it on the Apache lists:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200512.mbox/%
> 3c43921AC6 dot 3080706 at dedasys dot com%3e
I'm very familiar with the situation at Harmony and it doesn't worry
me much as a precedent. The situation there was of an Apache project
wanting an FSF project under the GPL with an exception generally
considered ideal for the technology involved to drop the GPL (or
rather dual-license under BSD) so Apache could take all their code.
We used the same Classpath exception for Sun Java last year and it
received rapturous acclaim from the Free software community, and the
fully-open Java ME community has already seen 4 platform ports I
believe.
>
> Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:
>
> 1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the
> exception is removable
The result would not be distributable with closed binaries and more.
> 2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL"
> licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)
Not at all - as the exception can be dropped the purists can always
have their code. They just have to replicated the closed binaries as
GPL software, which they would want to do anyway. "Just".
> 3) anti-drm lameness in GPLv3 that CDDL does not have
Not a problem; users where that is an issue can license under the
CDDL, or obtain a commercial license from Sun.
>
> You might have a winner. Otherwise, why the heck are we talking
> about licensing when there are so many other things to address that
> are far more crucial to the success of this project?
Not me - I am still evaluating. It's just possible though that we all
have a winner here if we can suspend disbelief long enough to see it :-)
S.
[1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-July/000008.html
[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like
to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 9:24 AM
in response to: webmink
|
|
Simon Phipps wrote:
>> The problem with exception clauses is that there is nothing preventing
>> redistributors of the software from removing that clause. In fact, I
>> believe you're required to allow people to do this.
>>
>> So this means that even if OpenSolaris were hypothetically relicensed
>> under just the GPLv3, you could esentially end up with a dual-license
>> situation with a single license! Do we really want this mess? I don't...
>
> I don't see it as a mess. The reason the assembly exception will be
> present is to allow the distribution of combinations of code under
> incompatible licenses. Remove the exception (which as you say has to be
> possible) and distribution is no longer permitted. I believe this would
> pose a barrier to almost all potential abusers.
>> Now if you can somehow solve the problems of:
>>
>> 1) GPL+exception esentially being a dual-license because the exception
>> is removable
>
> The result would not be distributable with closed binaries and more.
>> 2) GPL+exception being essentially incompatible with "pure GPL"
>> licensed code (maybe GPLv3 solves this somehow?)
>
> Not at all - as the exception can be dropped the purists can always have
> their code. They just have to replicated the closed binaries as GPL
> software, which they would want to do anyway. "Just".
Bearing in mind your statement about The Wrath Of The Lawyers(tm) I'm
not expecting you to necessarily answer, but I have a question about the
scenarios you outlined above:
From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code. When the
projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
problems that entails?
Bearing in mind that removal of the existing closed binaries is probably
going to be one of the areas where the non-Sun community members can
help us most, because they haven't been tainted, I don't think the
current situation where you need closed binaries to for a usable
distribution is going to remain for all that long, or at least I hope
not. Relying on closed binaries or non-GPLv3-licensed source to
preserve a unified source base would seem to be a little risky, if not
downright foolish.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
372
From:
AR
Registered:
2/2/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 9:46 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
On 2/4/07, Alan Burlison <Alan dot Burlison at sun dot com> wrote:
>
> Bearing in mind your statement about The Wrath Of The Lawyers(tm) I'm
> not expecting you to necessarily answer, but I have a question about the
> scenarios you outlined above:
>
> From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
> because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
> exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code. When the
> projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
> binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
> someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
> CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
> problems that entails?
>
I dont see how that makes the situation any different, they could
still implement the closed source parts and release them using gplv3
only if we dual license. Same outcome
nacho
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,218
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like
to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 10:24 AM
in response to: nacho
|
|
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>> From what you say it appears the assembly exception is only required
>> because we can't release everything under the GPLv3, so the assembly
>> exception allows us to mix non-GPLv3 code with GPLv3 code. When the
>> projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
>> binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
>> someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
>> CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
>> problems that entails?
>>
> I dont see how that makes the situation any different, they could
> still implement the closed source parts and release them using gplv3
> only if we dual license. Same outcome
That's true as well. I think Simon is saying that he feels that having
to reimplement the non-GPLv3 parts of Solaris would prevent a sufficient
barrier to an incompatible fork. I'm not sure that's true now, and I'm
pretty sure it won't be a barrier at all at some point in the future.
As I've said before, I haven't fully made up my mind if GPLv3 is a good
or a bad thing - and as GPLv3 doesn't actually exist yet, I don't think
anyone can make a definitive statement. However I'm pretty convinced
that dual licensing of any sort is not the right course to take,
irrespective of the licenses involved.
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 3:40 PM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
> When the
> projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the closed
> binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything to stop
> someone at that point ripping out both the assembly exception and the
> CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-licensed fork, with all the
> problems that entails?
IANAL as well. And I don't speak for Sun.
So, if I follow this hypothetical scenerio for a moment, how does it play out?
The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
binary code.
Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
(or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
and the fork is a little bit out of date.
...repeat every 2 weeks...
and each time the fork gets more out of date.
Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
feasible. Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
Good for them. Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
fatally for OpenSolaris.
On the other hand, if everyone moved lock, stock and barrel over to
the fork, there still shouldn't be much of an issue - after all,
the Nextenta's, Schillix's and Belinix's etc of the world shouldn't
have a problem with using the GPL'd versions then, either.
Yes, some users who themselves ca not use GPL'd stuff might be
disenfranchised, so they wouldn't like this option. The key
uncertainty here is whether it would effect Sun. I'm not sure
(but IANAL) it would.
On the third hand, since it is really only this transitional state,
where we have that bag of closed binaries slung over our back, that
makes the CDDL important and the GPL impossible, maybe the OpenSolaris
community itself would be the ones to do the fork....
I don't see the downside here...
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Bryan Cantrill
bmc@eng.sun.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 3:54 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
> The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
> OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
> binary code.
>
> Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
> CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
>
> 2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
> (or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
> and the fork is a little bit out of date.
>
> ...repeat every 2 weeks...
> and each time the fork gets more out of date.
>
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible. Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
> Good for them. Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
> fatally for OpenSolaris.
Let me lay out a scenario that I just elucidated on Stephen O'Grady's
blog (http://redmonk.com/sogrady/): let's say that several years down the
track, a major competitor to Sun in the server space decides that, much to
their regret, OpenSolaris is an option that they must not just provide, but
also extend and develop. But the competitor doesn't want to outsource its
OS development to Sun -- they just want to hijack OpenSolaris. A GPLv3
dual-license allows for a devious plan: they could take the source, strip
the CDDL, and announce that their "GPLv3-only" OpenSolaris was open to all
comers. For good measure, they might find some of the major pain points for
non-Sun contributors to OpenSolaris and rectify them -- by either hiring
those contributors, or establishing great developer resources, or offering
services based on their GPLv3-only variant. The optics are good (the
competitor positions themselves as "liberating" OpenSolaris, perhaps even
joyfully expressing as much in a 101 billboard or two), they get the
technology, and they steal the momentum -- albeit at a terrible, terrible
cost to the OpenSolaris community.
And before you blow off the above as impossible: both the AT&T/Berkeley
wars in the 1980s and the Linux/proprietary wars in the 1990s contain
significant elements of the above scenario. It is our responsibility in
the OpenSolaris community to not just reflect today's economics, but
understand tomorrow's possibilities -- and to have a license that protects
our community from the internecine feuds that have destroyed or hindered
so many software efforts. And before anyone says it: this is _not_ about
protecting Sun -- it is about protecting OpenSolaris. Indeed, the scenario
under which the risk of a dual-license feud would be most grave would be
the untimely demise of Sun Microsystems; it is exactly because we must
protect our community against such a cataclysm that we must seriously
consider the risks of dual-licensing.
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
689
From:
GB
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 4:13 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
Thanks for that, John, it was exactly what I was going to write. It's
easy in these discussions to forget the power of the community we all
comprise. People creating a fork take on the burden of re-porting,
regression testing and rework unless they can attract a significant
number of the skilled contributors to their project. I don't believe
that will happen unless we collectively screw the first 2 years up so
badly that everyone is begging for a fork. So far we only have one
person in that position :-)
S.
On Feb 4, 2007, at 23:40, John Plocher wrote:
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>> When the
>> projects (both existing and yet-to-be-born) to remove all the
>> closed binaries and non-GPLv3 code are complete, is there anything
>> to stop someone at that point ripping out both the assembly
>> exception and the CDDL licensed and producing an incompatibly-
>> licensed fork, with all the problems that entails?
>
> IANAL as well. And I don't speak for Sun.
>
> So, if I follow this hypothetical scenerio for a moment, how does
> it play out?
>
> The Emancipation project finally does its last putback into
> OpenSolaris/ON Build "x", replacing the last of the closed
> binary code.
>
> Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
> CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
>
> 2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
> (or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
> and the fork is a little bit out of date.
>
> ...repeat every 2 weeks...
> and each time the fork gets more out of date.
>
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible. Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
> Good for them. Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
> fatally for OpenSolaris.
>
> On the other hand, if everyone moved lock, stock and barrel over to
> the fork, there still shouldn't be much of an issue - after all,
> the Nextenta's, Schillix's and Belinix's etc of the world shouldn't
> have a problem with using the GPL'd versions then, either.
> Yes, some users who themselves ca not use GPL'd stuff might be
> disenfranchised, so they wouldn't like this option. The key
> uncertainty here is whether it would effect Sun. I'm not sure
> (but IANAL) it would.
>
> On the third hand, since it is really only this transitional state,
> where we have that bag of closed binaries slung over our back, that
> makes the CDDL important and the GPL impossible, maybe the OpenSolaris
> community itself would be the ones to do the fork....
>
> I don't see the downside here...
>
> -John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you?
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 5:12 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
> On the third hand,
{ third hand? really ? } :-)
Any fork with a chance of doing anything would need guys like Jeff Bonwick
and Jonathan Adams on staff. Bryan Cantrill and Mr. Schilling. Millions of
dollars would be needed. Millions.
Let me check my bank account .. just .. a sec .. here .. ah yes
nope ..
maybe I'll check again on Tuesday for that seven digit balance.
In all seriousness I started gathering up nice domain names for a new
project starting a year ago or so. Maybe longer. The idea was based on
the original tagline "Open for Business". Then I managed to schlock over
the idea "fast, safe, open, free. open for business, open for me" and so I
bought up all the opn4 domains as well as openfor.org just to be safe.
At some point a fork of some sort would happen and so I gathered resources
to be ready for that day. Now I feel that a fork can *not* be done without
instant failure right after the fanfare dies down. However there are other
things that can be done. Should be done. Like a community driven
OpenSolaris based test center. A build center where people with no
resources just simply login and play. Where a Sun Global Desktop gets
handed out for free. Also, we can take all the software from Blastwave and
drag it into a pure Solaris 10 build environment. We can build a cluster
based on the new Sun Cluster 3.2 software and then play/learn with it.
Future looking and community based ... that is what I am thinking.
But a fork of OpenSolaris.org itself? That is a whole other kettle of fish.
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 12:15 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher <John dot Plocher at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> Some enterprising team immediately forks and strips off the
> CDDL license, making a pure GPLv3 version of OpenSolaris/ON.
>
> 2 weeks later, OpenSolaris/ON Build x+1 comes out
> (or the Hg repository gate is updated or ...)
> and the fork is a little bit out of date.
>
> ...repeat every 2 weeks...
> and each time the fork gets more out of date.
>
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible. Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
> Good for them. Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
> fatally for OpenSolaris.
You are right. You may see this with the cdrtools fork, but the
real problem is from another side:
The Debian guys did take the cdrtools version from 12 months ago,
started to do useless changes on it and mainly destroyed portability
and equal behavior on all OS. Meanwhile the original project did
massively improve.
The problem is that Debian claims that the original has license problems
and that there is no development in the oroginal and there are just too
many people who believe this. I expect that Debian will be able to mess
around people this way for at least 2 years.
Do you like to start another similar enterprise?
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 12:49 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
>Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
>rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
>forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
>more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
>feasible. Sure, some would use this fork, and would be happy.
>Good for them. Sure, this splits the community a bit, but not
>fatally for OpenSolaris.
Well, the GPLv3 only fork can easily mirror all changes (the bulk
of which is not likely to affect them at first).
>On the other hand, if everyone moved lock, stock and barrel over to
>the fork, there still shouldn't be much of an issue - after all,
>the Nextenta's, Schillix's and Belinix's etc of the world shouldn't
>have a problem with using the GPL'd versions then, either.
>Yes, some users who themselves ca not use GPL'd stuff might be
>disenfranchised, so they wouldn't like this option. The key
>uncertainty here is whether it would effect Sun. I'm not sure
>(but IANAL) it would.
they would; the GPL'ed version would not allow the distributions to
include non-GPL device drivers.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
US
Registered:
12/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2007 1:44 AM
in response to: plocher
|
|
John Plocher wrote:
> Unless everyone stopped contributing to the OpenSolaris project and
> rehosted themselves over to the fork, the fork maintainers will be
> forced to either ignore the OpenSolaris changes, or spend more and
> more time resyncing their fork - neither of which is long-term
> feasible.
I think you're underestimating the likelihood and effort that this would
take. See e.g. *BSD history. Forks can and will happen, and can live for
a long time or even overtake the original.
Anyway, the whole forking and "People's Front of Judea vs. Judean
People's Front" phenomenon isn't new, and something that you know might
happen when you go open source.
The actual problem is, as others have pointed out, that there could be
forks (or partial forks) from which the 'real' OpenSolaris could not
take fixes back, and that defeats the whole purpose of open source in
the first place. It would be damaging.
- Frank
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to
you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
Posted:
Feb 4, 2007 3:38 AM
in response to: Simon Phipps
|
|
Simon Phipps <Simon dot Phipps at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> Indeed, the FSF is using this mechanism to replace the LGPL with a
> combination of the GPLv3 and an exception. I would expect us to
> approach the FSF and get their advice and support for the exception
> language we use.
We had a similar discussion 25 months ago when the CDDL was set up.
I am using a reverse "exception" for the CDDL. libscg (the poratble SCSI
transport library) is under CDDL but bay only be used by OSI approved code
and not by closed source software.
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:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 9:52 PM
in response to: harpster
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Apple's XCode
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/xcode.html) is a
> kick-*** front-end
> for their version of DTrace. I don't see them
> contributing that back to
> OpenSolaris.....
That's not shipping yet, so let's be fair and wait first before saying that please.
> Stephen Harpster
> Director, Open Source Software
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:42 PM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> And, perhaps, can we in fairness in this discussion
> say that we're
> using "GPLv3 with the assembly exception"; that makes
> GPLv3 much
> more like the CDDL; and I'm sure that the community
> isn't stupid.
> If they like that property of the GPL, then they
> won't stand for
> the exception.
Completely agreed, and of course they're not obgliated to keep the exception either, so we esentially end up with a dual-license problem again. Yay :(
> So Sun is not really proposing to use the GPL, Sun is
> just pretending?
>
>
> Casper
I can practically hear them now...
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 2:34 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
I cannot see this.....Linux stays with GPLv2 and the main problem is not
Linux but the fact that people working on Linux do not like to use sources
from OpenSolaris. I see no reason why Linux could not take ZFS and use
it directly inside Linux.
> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
> Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
> also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
This is not true.
The GPL does not use the term "linking", so using "linking" in an explanation
definitely does not help to understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
1) The GPL allows to use GPLd drivers inside Solaris.
Using a driver inside a OS kernel does not create a new derived work.
The GPLd driver is merely used, but as long as the driver is not
required to use the OS, it cannot be part of the "work" OpenSolaris
kernel.
If the driver is shipped in binary form together with the the binary
of the Solaris kernel (inside one single binary), then GPL §3 requires
the publisher to publish all sourcecode that is needed to compile and
link that binary. If the driver is published as a separete binray, then
this is no problem as the FSF did admit that the GPL is conforming
to the OSI OSS rules and in special follows OSI §9.
2) The GPL allows to use ZFS inside Linux.
ZFS is a big work and the changes that are needed in order to run ZFS
on Linux do not make ZFS a "work derived from Linux".
The few parts from the Linux code that will be needed for the port
will be covered by the "Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat" klause in the
Copyright law.
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:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:36 AM
in response to: Joerg Schilling
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
>> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
>> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>>
>
> I cannot see this.....Linux stays with GPLv2 and the main problem is not
> Linux but the fact that people working on Linux do not like to use sources
> from OpenSolaris. I see no reason why Linux could not take ZFS and use
> it directly inside Linux.
>
GPLv2 and GPLv3 won't mix. As long as Linus insists on keeping the
kernel with v2, ZFS won't migrate to Linux (because it has kernel
components). Now if the Linux kernel moved to v3, that's a different
story..... (but one that won't happen for years).
>
>
>> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
>> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
>> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
>> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>>
>> Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
>> also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
>>
>
> This is not true.
>
> The GPL does not use the term "linking", so using "linking" in an explanation
> definitely does not help to understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
>
I knew that using the work "linking" would bring this quagmire back.
Sorry, folks.
>
> 1) The GPL allows to use GPLd drivers inside Solaris.
>
> Using a driver inside a OS kernel does not create a new derived work.
> The GPLd driver is merely used, but as long as the driver is not
> required to use the OS, it cannot be part of the "work" OpenSolaris
> kernel.
>
> If the driver is shipped in binary form together with the the binary
> of the Solaris kernel (inside one single binary), then GPL §3 requires
> the publisher to publish all sourcecode that is needed to compile and
> link that binary. If the driver is published as a separete binray, then
> this is no problem as the FSF did admit that the GPL is conforming
> to the OSI OSS rules and in special follows OSI §9.
>
>
> 2) The GPL allows to use ZFS inside Linux.
>
> ZFS is a big work and the changes that are needed in order to run ZFS
> on Linux do not make ZFS a "work derived from Linux".
>
> The few parts from the Linux code that will be needed for the port
> will be covered by the "Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat" klause in the
> Copyright law.
>
>
I don't believe that the majority of the legal community would agree
with you. Or the Linux community for that matter. If what you said is
true, then ZFS would already be in Linux.
> Jörg
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 4:17 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster <Stephen dot Harpster at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> > I cannot see this.....Linux stays with GPLv2 and the main problem is not
> > Linux but the fact that people working on Linux do not like to use sources
> > from OpenSolaris. I see no reason why Linux could not take ZFS and use
> > it directly inside Linux.
> >
> GPLv2 and GPLv3 won't mix. As long as Linus insists on keeping the
This is correct....
> kernel with v2, ZFS won't migrate to Linux (because it has kernel
> components). Now if the Linux kernel moved to v3, that's a different
> story..... (but one that won't happen for years).
This is wrong as you do not mix ZFS and Linux when you port ZFS to Linux.
It looks like you still make the mistake to believe the FSF GPL FAQ that
is incorrectly based on the term "linking".
> >> Now normally, linking gpl.c and harpster.c would force harpster.c to
> >> also be licensed as GPL. That's the "viral" nature of GPL everyone
> >>
> >
> > This is not true.
> >
> > The GPL does not use the term "linking", so using "linking" in an explanation
> > definitely does not help to understand what can be done and what cannot be done.
> >
> I knew that using the work "linking" would bring this quagmire back.
> Sorry, folks.
Well, this is the main problem when trying to discuss legal aspects of the GPL.
> > 2) The GPL allows to use ZFS inside Linux.
> >
> > ZFS is a big work and the changes that are needed in order to run ZFS
> > on Linux do not make ZFS a "work derived from Linux".
> >
> > The few parts from the Linux code that will be needed for the port
> > will be covered by the "Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat" klause in the
> > Copyright law.
> >
> >
> I don't believe that the majority of the legal community would agree
> with you. Or the Linux community for that matter. If what you said is
> true, then ZFS would already be in Linux.
Depends on what you understand by "the legal community". It you refer to the
dilletantes (e.g. from Debian), you would probably find people who will not
agree ;-)
As long as "the legal community" does not prove their claims with text from the
GPL, we may safely ignore them.....
There is a big difference between mixing code and accumulating projects.
You may safely incorporate the needed small amount of code from Linux if you
like to port ZFS to Linux, see:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__24.html
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__51.html
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__57.html
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__63.html
§ 24 allows to incorporate other peoples code into an independent work.
§ 51 allows free publishing if the amount is in the extent that is needed
by the special case (while there is still an independent work).
§ 57 allows free publishing in case that the matter is a negligible attachement
§ 63 requires to name the source
ZFS is doubtlessly an independent work
ZFS is not becoming a part of the "work" Linux from the port
ZFS only needs a very small amount of "code" from Linux for the port and this
amount of code is covered by § 24, § 51 and §57
As I am talking about a right that is independent of the permission from the
author, a ZFS -> Linux port is not afected by the GPL.
As you see, Linux people could safely take ZFS and port it as long as they
are redeeming the rules from the CDDL.
A aimilar case is when you port a driver from Linux to Solaris (as long as you
may prove that this driver has been created as independent work). You should be
able to safely assume an "independent work" in case that the driver has been
not been created by Linus Torvalds and "integrated" into Linux after it was
mainly complete.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,793
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 4:32 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
>> license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
>> source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
>> bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
>> that dual-licensing will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception"
>> anyway?).
> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
You can't say that.
Somebody could do it "just because".
> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose I
> have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under CDDL
> and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
Dual licensing is complex and just makes things more complex than they
already are.
It is the worst possible outcome.
To gain a good stable and willing developer community that wants to
commit to the opensolaris.org code bases (rather than develop on it) we
need a simple easy to understand licensing model.
Dual (or worse Triple licensing) is too complex for the majority of
developers to understand.
> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first
> place -- and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are
and doing dual license with something else may well do that - is that a
risk you personally would be willing to take ?
> still folks who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create
> proprietary solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL does not.
and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance stuff
only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
As you said CDDL allows for a mixing of proprietary and open source in
the way that the GPL does not. This was one of the main reasons the
CDDL was created the way it was. It is also one of the things that many
of us point out as being good about the OpenSolaris community, we have a
license that allows that mixing at a file level.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:43 AM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>>> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
>>> license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
>>> source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
>>> bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the
>>> confusion that dual-licensing will bring (just what *is* an
>>> "assembly exception" anyway?).
>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they
>> maintain that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what
>> happens if their new incompatible changes don't work with the changes
>> they pull from opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't
>> imagine it happening.
>
> You can't say that.
>
> Somebody could do it "just because".
Of course. But it's not practical and thus very unlikely. I'm doing
risk analysis here. There's also a chance that the sun may go supernova
tomorrow, but the probability of that is very, very small. Not
everything is weighted equally.
>
>> An assembly exception is sort of a way to neuter a license. Suppose
>> I have two files, gpl.c and harpster.c. gpl.c is dual licensed under
>> CDDL and GPLv3. harpster.c is licensed under the Harpster license, a
>> proprietary license that solves world hunger. ;-)
>
> Dual licensing is complex and just makes things more complex than they
> already are.
>
> It is the worst possible outcome.
>
> To gain a good stable and willing developer community that wants to
> commit to the opensolaris.org code bases (rather than develop on it)
> we need a simple easy to understand licensing model.
>
> Dual (or worse Triple licensing) is too complex for the majority of
> developers to understand.
I think it's a challenge, but I think it could be overcome.
>
>> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first
>> place -- and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are
>
> and doing dual license with something else may well do that - is that
> a risk you personally would be willing to take ?
Maybe a portion of our community. That's why we're having this
discussion.
>
>> still folks who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and
>> create proprietary solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL
>> does not.
>
> and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance stuff
> only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
will need to be dual-licensed.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:57 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> > and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance stuff
> > only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
> Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
> will need to be dual-licensed.
No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
"reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
excellent place to set up a rival community.
Those who are willing to consent to dual-licensing today with the
possibility of additional licenses to be named in the future might go
to opensolaris.org. The rest would go to the other site, and use GPL
alone.
If the goal really is growing the community around opensolaris.org, I
don't see how adding another layer of complexity will achieve that.
If the goal is setting Solaris free such that Sun can't use it
anymore, then I think adding another license is a solid move in that
direction.
--
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:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:28 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson wrote:
> Stephen Harpster writes:
>
>>> and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance stuff
>>> only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
>>>
>> Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
>> will need to be dual-licensed.
>>
>
> No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
> "reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
> excellent place to set up a rival community.
>
OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
> Those who are willing to consent to dual-licensing today with the
> possibility of additional licenses to be named in the future might go
> to opensolaris.org. The rest would go to the other site, and use GPL
> alone.
>
No they won't. Where will innovation occur? That's what people really
care about. Who will work on reallyopensolaris.org and who will work on
opensolaris.org? Most of the developers, for good or bad, are employed
by Sun and will continue to develop on opensolaris.org. The rest of the
world can pull from reallyopensolaris.org, but that code base will get
old and crusty pretty fast.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,156
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:40 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>>> and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance
>>>> stuff only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
>>>>
>>> Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
>>> will need to be dual-licensed.
>>>
>>
>> No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
>> "reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
>> excellent place to set up a rival community.
>>
> OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
openersolaris.org?
:-P
i suppose that runs into the 'solaris' trademark.
openersolarisest.org
-steve
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun dot com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:42 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> > No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
> > "reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
> > excellent place to set up a rival community.
> >
> OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
Fine. "openos.org" is also available, and easier to type.
> > Those who are willing to consent to dual-licensing today with the
> > possibility of additional licenses to be named in the future might go
> > to opensolaris.org. The rest would go to the other site, and use GPL
> > alone.
> >
> No they won't. Where will innovation occur? That's what people really
> care about. Who will work on reallyopensolaris.org and who will work on
> opensolaris.org? Most of the developers, for good or bad, are employed
> by Sun and will continue to develop on opensolaris.org. The rest of the
> world can pull from reallyopensolaris.org, but that code base will get
> old and crusty pretty fast.
I think we're coming down the the crux of the matter here.
I agree that if we think like customers and end users of Solaris then,
yes, it's innovation and branding and patch delivery and support that
matter.
However, if we think like contributors to an open source project, what
matters is the openness and speed of the process, the transparency of
the licensing, the ability to contribute *directly* to the code,
ownership of the results, and an equal footing for those involved.
Assuming that growing the opensolaris.org community is the intended
purpose, adding a new license to the mix does not in fact advance any
of those issues. It makes a rival community that _does_ address those
issues possible, while it actually adds complexity and risk to our
existing community.
That still seems like a net loss, as I'm rather convinced that the
fork will in fact happen, whether we think it's feasible or not.
(For what it's worth, and it may not be much, I believe the very same
issues affected the Zebra/Quagga split. Integration into Zebra was
considered by quite a few to be difficult, and the folks who started
the project apparently felt they held the important cards. Now it
seems that's not quite the case.)
No matter how much I think of sun.com, and it's quite a bit, I'm not
so willing to bet that the only smart, talented, capable people
available are already here.
--
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:
769
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:52 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>>> and of those nice interesting things that help do the appliance
>>>> stuff only get released under GPLv3 and not CDDL it doesn't help them.
>>>>
>>> Which is why contributions back into OpenSolaris (the kernel anyway),
>>> will need to be dual-licensed.
>>>
>>
>> No, they won't. According to 'whois', it looks like
>> "reallyopensolaris.org" hasn't been registered yet, and would be an
>> excellent place to set up a rival community.
>>
> OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
>
That's nothing but random (semi-humorous I guess) nitpicking, and you know it.
So far, in this sub thread. You've somewhat implied that those of us not
employed by you are unable to fix problems in the code (for reasons other
than process), and matter less both in these decisions, and in general, and
then have thrown in random things like the above.
What *exactly* are you intending to gain from this argument other than the
distrust of anybody both involved in this process and not directly
subordinate to you?
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:08 PM
in response to: richlowe
|
|
Richard Lowe wrote:
>
>>>
>> OpenSolaris is a Sun trademark, so don't count on it. ;-)
>>
>
> That's nothing but random (semi-humorous I guess) nitpicking, and you
> know it.
That's why I had a smiley face there.
>
> So far, in this sub thread. You've somewhat implied that those of us
> not employed by you are unable to fix problems in the code (for
> reasons other than process), and matter less both in these decisions,
> and in general, and then have thrown in random things like the above.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that simply the majority of
contributers work for Sun. Period. If that changes, nobody will be
happier than me.
If you the community didn't matter, I would just change the license and
be done with it. Instead, we're having this discussion because I
believe that OpenSolaris is indeed open and that we as a community must
reach consensus one way or another.
>
> What *exactly* are you intending to gain from this argument other than
> the distrust of anybody both involved in this process and not directly
> subordinate to you?
I'm trying to determine if a dual-license is a good idea or not. For
the record, some of the people that have so far spoken against a
dual-license do indeed work for me. That's ok. This is a free and open
discussion. I'm not trying to strong arm people, but I do want to
address potential issues. Some very valid concerns have been raised,
but there's also been a lot of panicking, sky is falling, side tracking
off to unrelated issues, etc. I want to separate the valid concerns
from the noise and see if the valid concerns can be addressed. If not,
then you have valid reasons for not doing a dual-license.
I don't see why open discussion would generate distrust. I would have
thought the reverse.....
P.S. Nobody has yet asked me what my opinion is. For the record, I'm
still on the fence.
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:14 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
Won't it only open us up to projects that use GPLv3 with the same assembly
exception? "Pure" GPLv3 projects will be able to take our code, but we
won't be able to use theirs unless they relicense with the exception.
--
-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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:26 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
>Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be successful,
>> you want to reach out to as many communities as possible. The more
>> friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>
>Won't it only open us up to projects that use GPLv3 with the same assembly
>exception? "Pure" GPLv3 projects will be able to take our code, but we
>won't be able to use theirs unless they relicense with the exception.
Quite. And I think that sidestepping the exception is wrong.
To use my playground analogy:
The OS Kid: "Can I play with you?"
Other Kids: "We won't play with you, you're not GPL"
The OS Kid, relicenses under the GPL with exception: "Hello,
I'm relicensed, will you play with me now?"
Other Kids: "That's not the proper GPL; give us your lunch money
and get out of here".
Unless GPLv3 is phrased such that the assembly "exception" is the norm,
this won't buy is anything, PR wise.
To claim that the GPL was instrumental in "Sun getting it" for Java is
a fallacious argument; Java's previous license was not conductive to
Open development
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:43 PM
in response to: casper
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Unless GPLv3 is phrased such that the assembly
> "exception" is the norm,
> this won't buy is anything, PR wise.
>
> To claim that the GPL was instrumental in "Sun
> getting it" for Java is
> a fallacious argument; Java's previous license was
> not conductive to
> Open development
>
> Casper
+1
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:50 AM
in response to: alanc
|
|
For the kernel, true. For userland, no. Don't forget that we're
already taking in GPLv2.
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be
>> successful, you want to reach out to as many communities as
>> possible. The more friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>
> Won't it only open us up to projects that use GPLv3 with the same
> assembly
> exception? "Pure" GPLv3 projects will be able to take our code, but we
> won't be able to use theirs unless they relicense with the exception.
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:53 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
But we're already doing that, so dual-licensing won't open us up any
more than we already are, so where's the benefit?
Stephen Harpster wrote:
> For the kernel, true. For userland, no. Don't forget that we're
> already taking in GPLv2.
>
>
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Stephen Harpster wrote:
>>> The big bonus is that GPLv3 will open us up to a whole new audience.
>>> Linux aside, there are plenty of other big projects that will combine
>>> with OpenSolaris more easily if we're dual licensed. To be
>>> successful, you want to reach out to as many communities as
>>> possible. The more friends the better. GPLv3 will give us that.
>>
>> Won't it only open us up to projects that use GPLv3 with the same
>> assembly
>> exception? "Pure" GPLv3 projects will be able to take our code, but we
>> won't be able to use theirs unless they relicense with the exception.
>>
>
--
-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:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 8:48 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> > Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
> > license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
> > source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
> > bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
> > that dual-licensing will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception"
> > anyway?).
> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
I can.
If the source becomes available under GPL, then an obvious fix to the
community's well-justified[1] frustration with our lack of openness,
speed, and flexibility in bug tracking, development, and integration
becomes possible.
All that someone has to do is set up a CVS server with Bugzilla
somewhere on the 'net, allow a simple registration process, and
prohibit the use of anything but GPL. Heck, putting it on sourceforge
or the like would probably do the trick.
This then becomes a _rival_ project to Open Solaris. They can take
new bits from opensolaris.org if they want, or they can just not care
to do so. They instead build an open community.
The result is a fracture over control issues that are akin to those
afflicting Zebra versus Quagga and some other open source projects.
If I had to place money on one of those horses to win, it almost
certainly wouldn't be the one saddled with a complex multi-license
scheme, fragmentary bug tracking, and developmental problems.
I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before.
[1] Yes, I know we've made great progress. That's not the point.
--
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:
162
From:
Sunnyvale, California
Registered:
4/29/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:22 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
> Stephen Harpster writes:
>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
>> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
>> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
>> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
As well as the example Jim says, the other likely more scenario is:
* Someone takes a small-but-interesting part of OpenSolaris such as ZFS
(rather than the whole thing), and ports this to run on Linux.
* This gets released as GPLv3 only, and is hosted somewhere else. Not
because of an intentional fork, but because the code needed to be changed
and the contributors don't want to submit a bunch of ARC reviews for
permission to add "#ifdef LINUX" all over the ZFS code, OpenSolaris does
not want to take Linux-only changes, or other completely valid reasons.
[1]
* A bunch of new and interesting features get added, but are GPLv3-only.
Again, not necessarily because of any intent to be anti-CDDL, but just
because the project is forked.
* OpenSolaris proper can't then use the enhancements due to the license.
Granted the GPL v2/v3 conflict may make this more difficult for the Linux
kernel proper. But maybe not impossible.
Hugh.
[1] For example, I don't think there's any existing "#ifdef APPLE" in the
Dtrace code. Which means a fork already happened.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:07 AM
in response to: hugh
|
|
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
>> Stephen Harpster writes:
>>
>>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
>>> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
>>> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
>>> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
>>>
>
>
> As well as the example Jim says, the other likely more scenario is:
>
> * Someone takes a small-but-interesting part of OpenSolaris such as ZFS
> (rather than the whole thing), and ports this to run on Linux.
>
> * This gets released as GPLv3 only, and is hosted somewhere else. Not
> because of an intentional fork, but because the code needed to be changed
> and the contributors don't want to submit a bunch of ARC reviews for
> permission to add "#ifdef LINUX" all over the ZFS code, OpenSolaris does
> not want to take Linux-only changes, or other completely valid reasons.
> [1]
>
> * A bunch of new and interesting features get added, but are GPLv3-only.
> Again, not necessarily because of any intent to be anti-CDDL, but just
> because the project is forked.
>
> * OpenSolaris proper can't then use the enhancements due to the license.
>
Next step, and one that is more likely:
* Sun's ZFS team put in more interesting features. But these don't work
with the features that went into the fork. Sorry! And since to-date,
the majority of ZFS developers work at Sun, it's likely for the
foreseeable future that the ZFS in opensolaris.org will stay ahead of
the fork.
> Granted the GPL v2/v3 conflict may make this more difficult for the Linux
> kernel proper. But maybe not impossible.
>
> Hugh.
>
> [1] For example, I don't think there's any existing "#ifdef APPLE" in the
> Dtrace code. Which means a fork already happened.
>
My same example as well. :-)
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:55 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
complex for even a small set of people to maintain an entire separate fork.
OK, they could pull bug fixes from opensolaris.org, but what happens to
them once one of their changes doesn't work with our changes? That's
the biggest danger of a fork. You're constantly playing catch-up.
If someone wants to do that, they can do that now. Knock yourself out.
James Carlson wrote:
> Stephen Harpster writes:
>
>>> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure if we dual
>>> license - the potential for one license to be ripped off and the
>>> source forked *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
>>> bit), the inability to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
>>> that dual-licensing will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception"
>>> anyway?).
>>>
>> Very unlikely that a source fork will happen. Let's face it. Most of
>> the people who know and understand all the intricacies of OpenSolaris
>> source code work at Sun. Who's going to fork? How will they maintain
>> that fork? Constantly chase opensolaris.org? And what happens if their
>> new incompatible changes don't work with the changes they pull from
>> opensolaris.org? It's not practical and I can't imagine it happening.
>>
>
> I can.
>
> If the source becomes available under GPL, then an obvious fix to the
> community's well-justified[1] frustration with our lack of openness,
> speed, and flexibility in bug tracking, development, and integration
> becomes possible.
>
> All that someone has to do is set up a CVS server with Bugzilla
> somewhere on the 'net, allow a simple registration process, and
> prohibit the use of anything but GPL. Heck, putting it on sourceforge
> or the like would probably do the trick.
>
> This then becomes a _rival_ project to Open Solaris. They can take
> new bits from opensolaris.org if they want, or they can just not care
> to do so. They instead build an open community.
>
> The result is a fracture over control issues that are akin to those
> afflicting Zebra versus Quagga and some other open source projects.
> If I had to place money on one of those horses to win, it almost
> certainly wouldn't be the one saddled with a complex multi-license
> scheme, fragmentary bug tracking, and developmental problems.
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen this movie before.
>
>
> [1] Yes, I know we've made great progress. That's not the point.
>
>
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,810
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 11:10 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
Stephen Harpster writes:
> Who maintains the code on that CVS server?
Same as any other open source project -- the community built around it
does.
Would you ask that question about any other open source project?
> If there's a bug in virtual
> memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
> continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
> complex for even a small set of people to maintain an entire separate fork.
Assuming that _all_ of the smart, capable people are within sun.com
seems like a substantial risk. Assuming that it _matters_ seems like
a bigger one still.
Particularly so when what we're actually talking about here is the
viability of the community itself -- which is much larger than just
the code.
So, as a contributor, my choice is between Sun's community and dealing
with the unfinished areas of the process but gaining possible future
bug fixes, versus being able to commit directly, track bugs fully, and
feel like I own parts of the system. The choice doesn't look so
obviously in opensolaris.org's favor to me.
> OK, they could pull bug fixes from opensolaris.org, but what happens to
> them once one of their changes doesn't work with our changes? That's
> the biggest danger of a fork. You're constantly playing catch-up.
>
> If someone wants to do that, they can do that now. Knock yourself out.
They can't do it and get out from under the requirements of the CDDL,
particularly those that allow users to compile binaries and add
proprietary files and ship the result under a difference license
_without_ exposing source.
Adding a new license to the code allows them to ditch CDDL by choosing
to adopt GPL alone. If it doesn't allow them to get rid of CDDL, and
we're actually planning to stop people from doing that (via the lack
of patent grants?), then it opens us up to accusations of a bait-and-
switch.
I don't see a winning course here.
--
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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 3, 2007 4:23 AM
in response to: carlsonj
|
|
James Carlson <james dot d dot carlson at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> Adding a new license to the code allows them to ditch CDDL by choosing
> to adopt GPL alone. If it doesn't allow them to get rid of CDDL, and
> we're actually planning to stop people from doing that (via the lack
> of patent grants?), then it opens us up to accusations of a bait-and-
> switch.
>
> I don't see a winning course here.
See my previous mail about the Urheberrecht.....
... we do not need a dual licensed OpenSolaris. What we need is a clear
statement from Sun that Sun does not see any problem if Linux people would
e.g. take ZFS and port it to Linux.
Let us wait and see that then happens. I am sure that just the way of doing
FUD against OpenSolaris from some people would become different.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
803
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:03 PM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
> memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
> continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
That's a dangereous assertion. What it Jeff Bezos[1] decided to spend
more than the (??) $480m he spent last year on software development and
made some people at Sun an offer they could not refuse. Or decided to put
half of his software development $s into creating a Ubuntu like
OpenSolaris alternative. Then there is Google with enough budget to put
3,000 people to work on any project they wish to...
Who was it that said (something like) no one company can have all the
technical talent (on staff).
> complex for even a small set of people to maintain an entire separate fork.
Simply not true and not borne out by history. Was'nt ZFS developed by a
small team. Dtrace by 3 people. BSD, before it was open sourced was a 5
or 6 person (??) team.
> OK, they could pull bug fixes from opensolaris.org, but what happens to
> them once one of their changes doesn't work with our changes? That's
> the biggest danger of a fork. You're constantly playing catch-up.
Not true. In a race you're either leading or following. It's only
wishful thinking to suggest that Sun will always be the leader (altough
I'd _like to_ think it would).
> If someone wants to do that, they can do that now. Knock yourself out.
>
... snip ....
[1] there is some evidence to suggest that he is the ultimate geek who
just likes to build software systems and rockets and anything else that
strikes his fancy and does not seem compelled to justify his technobudget
to anyone.
Regards,
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al@logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:18 PM
in response to: alhopper
|
|
Al Hopper wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>
>> Who maintains the code on that CVS server? If there's a bug in virtual
>> memory, who fixes it? The experts are here in Sun, and they will
>> continue to work on opensolaris.org. OpenSolaris is too large and
>>
>
> That's a dangereous assertion. What it Jeff Bezos[1] decided to spend
> more than the (??) $480m he spent last year on software development and
> made some people at Sun an offer they could not refuse. Or decided to put
> half of his software development $s into creating a Ubuntu like
> OpenSolaris alternative. Then there is Google with enough budget to put
> 3,000 people to work on any project they wish to...
>
> Who was it that said (something like) no one company can have all the
> technical talent (on staff).
>
I would love it. It would mean that OpenSolaris is successful. And the
publicity of Sun saying "Amazon and Google have validated the
superiority of OpenSolaris over Linux" would be HUGE!
>
> Not true. In a race you're either leading or following. It's only
> wishful thinking to suggest that Sun will always be the leader (altough
> I'd _like to_ think it would).
>
It's quite unlikely that any one company other than Sun will lead
OpenSolaris. Even if they did, we have the above case and I'm still happy.
More likely, there will evolve non-Sun leaders of individual projects.
This is what we're actually *trying* to create, so I'm still happy.
--
Stephen Harpster
Director, Open Source Software
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 6, 2007 6:44 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first place --
> and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are still folks
> who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create proprietary
> solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL does not.
You mean, the Brocade fibre switches running Linux in my data centers
don't really exist? ;-)
GPL doesn't mean you can't embed, any more than CDDL means you can....
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 6, 2007 6:55 AM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Stephen Harpster wrote:
>
>> We can't ditch CDDL for all the reasons we put it there in the first place --
>> and we don't want to alienate the community we have. There are still folks
>> who will want to embed OpenSolaris in appliances and create proprietary
>> solutions. CDDL allows for that very nicely. GPL does not.
>
>You mean, the Brocade fibre switches running Linux in my data centers
>don't really exist? ;-)
>
>GPL doesn't mean you can't embed, any more than CDDL means you can....
That's not what Stephen said; please re-read it.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 6:41 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
147
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
5/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 8:54 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
So...... you're saying we should completely give up on the desktop and
attracting developers? The article you reference talks about a server
focus.....
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
> I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
>
> Casper
>
--
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: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 9:10 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>So...... you're saying we should completely give up on the desktop and
>attracting developers? The article you reference talks about a server
>focus.....
No, giving up the desktop is giving up on everything.
Sun's executives made that mistake once before.
How did Sun get to the datacenter?
How did Windows get to the datacenter?
How did Linux get to the datacenter?
We all know the answer.
A year ago the report would have attracted a chorus of "rah, Linix, rah!".
Now almost every other bit of the thread mentions Sun/Solaris and/or
the fact it runs on the cheap hardware too. And in a favorable light.
So we've went from:
Gartner says Something negative about Linux: Gartner are idiots
Gartner says Something positive about Linux: rah, rah
to:
Gartner says Something positive about Linux: Gartner has no clue about UNIX.
Success, I'd say, and mindshare.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 10:14 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote On 02/07/07 23:41,:
>
> I'd say OpenSolaris/Solaris success looks pretty much like this:
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/06/1448200.shtml
Interesting thread. Seems we are slowly making progress. Bubbling up in
other conversations is really an excellent sign. Thanks for that link.
Alan B. mentioned it as well.
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 7:24 AM
in response to: harpster
|
|
>To me, this is /the/ issue in our discourse as a community. I'm happy we
>got many substantive issues out on the table that were articulated
>absolutely professionally (and those posts were obvious), but we also
>attacked far too many people -- and entire groups and communities,
>actually -- in the process (and those attacks were obvious as well). I'm
>perfectly willing to accept that the aggressive behavior comes from a
>minority of people, but unfortunately in many community-wide threads
>like this they can carry the day.
>I may be making more of this than is necessary. It's just my opinion
I'm not sure I agree; I think overall the debate has been passionate;
I would not call it aggressive.
But that's perhaps because I've been dealing with online discussions
for many years; missing inflexions makes it difficult to assess the
precise force with which statements are made; I find that it's better
to err on the "I'm sure he meant f*in' b*r'd in an endearing way".
Yep, this type of discussion does away with all the niceties of polite
conversation; I much rather have that, though, than Blair saying
"Noone is contemplating on attack on Iran".
We just call 'm as we see 'm.
I think your PR bacjkround has made you used to slightly more polite
discourse :-)
That's why I think it's fine for the OGB/CAB not to interfere as if we're
refereeing a boxing match.
There's the occassional Troll, but they seem to be fairly harmless.
Now, it must be said that I read some non-technical Dutch newsgroups;
and the behaviour there is absolutely horrific; with ad-hominem being
the norm, not the exception (of course, political and "general" science
groups attract for more crackpots than other groups, but there's something
particularly wrong with how this works in the nl. hierarchy)
As a very opiniated person myself, I'm not looking toward leadership
for providing the "right" opinion. I'm also a laissez-faire kinda guy
(I'd prefer to describe my self as an anarcho-liberal as opposed to
the libearls who are generally conservatives, the conservatives who
are really right wing and the progressive who are generally
reactionaries.)
I think the CAB/OGB will make a fair assessment of where the community
stands wrt GPLv3 and dual licensing, heaving heard the arguments on
both sides.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,835
From:
JP
Registered:
4/6/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 7, 2007 10:11 PM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote On 02/08/07 00:24,:
> I think your PR bacjkround has made you used to slightly more polite
> discourse :-)
Actually, my specialty in Sun PR before OpenSolaris was rapid response
and competitive attack ... not very polite at all. :)
Jim
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
US
Registered:
12/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 12:59 AM
in response to: alanbur
|
|
Alan Burlison wrote:
> OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a community 10x or 100x as
> large as the one we have today. I really *don't* think the license is
> the main impediment we face, I think all the other issues that have been
> raised around ease of participation are *far* more important.
Just adding another "I agree wholeheartedly".
- Frank
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:43 PM
in response to: fvdl
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> > OpenSolaris is already perfectly usable by a
> community 10x or 100x as
> > large as the one we have today. I really *don't*
> think the license is
> > the main impediment we face, I think all the other
> issues that have been
> > raised around ease of participation are *far* more
> important.
>
> Just adding another "I agree wholeheartedly".
>
> - Frank
+1
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 10:41 PM
in response to: alanbur
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> Stack against that the issues we will have to endure
> if we dual license
> - the potential for one license to be ripped off and
> the source forked
> *incompatibly* (the incompatibility is the important
> bit), the inability
> to move bug fixes between versions, the confusion
> that dual-licensing
> will bring (just what *is* an "assembly exception"
> anyway?).
>
> If Sun really wants to go GPLv3 with OpenSolaris, I
> think they should
> just switch license entirely and ditch the CDDL. I
> really don't think
> dual licensing is a good idea. And I don't see that
> switching to GPLv3
> will fix the many issues we *should* be expending
> energy on.
>
> To me, the interesting and helpful bits of this long,
> long discussion
> have been about what we need to do as a community to
> to attract more
> members, and what we need to do to make life easier
> for the members we
> already have. As far as I'm concerned the licensing
> flamefest is really
> an irrelevant and unnecessary distraction.
+1
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
352
From:
Registered:
5/1/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd: Re:
G
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 5:53 PM
in response to: plocher
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> In our SunLabs/CTO organizational All-Hands meeting
> this
> morning I had the chance this morning to ask Rich
> Green
> (Sun's EVP/Software) about what Sun has learned in
> the
> last few years about licenses and open source,
> especially
> with the recent GPL'ing of Java and this OpenSolaris
> thread.
> His response was interesting, to say the least.
>
Did you get a chance to ask Rich about the schedule when the bug database problems will
be resolved? You know something that directly affects development participation. Maybe
Rich can make a guest appearance on and explain the road map.
---Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,539
From:
Cobourg Ontario Canada
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re:
[Fwd: Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 1, 2007 6:49 PM
in response to: plocher
|
|
> o As a leader, it is not a bad thing when people follow.
> In fact, it is really hard to be a leader with no followers.
> As long as we continue innovating, making OpenSolaris the
> best in the world, it is OK if Apple, RedHat and others
> want to emulate and adapt the things we have done. After
> all, this sort of thing tends to validate and reinforce
> OpenSolaris' leadership position.
It's quite a sound statement. Virtually impossible to refute.
It reads like one of those "it's a good thing" sort of things.
> o As good as the Java community was, releasing Java under
> the GPL made it better. Under the SCSL, the vibe in
> the FOSS community was "Sun just doesn't get it". With
> GPL, the feedback changed to "Finally, they get it."
very true.
> What if OpenSolaris under GPLv3 was usable by a community
> 10x or 100x as large as the one we have today? What if
> every Linux distro included the core OpenSolaris technologies?
> What if the FSF endorsed OpenSolaris :-)
I think my email inbox would get really full about 100x faster.
:-)
> To me, OpenSolaris is much more than a distro built from the
> ON consolidation. How much *more* it can be is really what we
> are debating here.
I have always been telling people that Solaris is the best engine you
can have in your server room when you really need things to work under
the best and worst circumstances. OpenSolaris allows you to look under
the hood.
Sometimes I am the only guy with my hand up also. :-\
Dennis Clarke
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
107
From:
US
Registered:
12/2/05
|
|
|
|
Re: What does OpenSolaris Success look like to you? (was Re: [Fwd:
Re: GPLv3?])
Posted:
Feb 2, 2007 1:02 AM
in response to: plocher
|
| | | |
