|
Replies:
36
-
Last Post:
Jun 14, 2007 6:03 PM
by: rlhamil
|
|
|
Posts:
124
From:
US
Registered:
1/24/06
|
|
|
|
Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 6, 2007 3:45 PM
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
Cc: Communities » desktop » discuss
|
|
Folks,
The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc.
At this time, we'd like to propose that Open Sound be started as a project under the Desktop Community and should things start getting more interesting, we'll spin off as our own community. Glynn Foster has agreed to be our sponsor.
More details and source code will be made available on June 14th.
Best regards
Dev Mazumdar
President
4Front Technologies
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 6, 2007 4:44 PM
in response to: dev
|
|
>Folks,
>
>The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offerin
g the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc.
>
>At this time, we'd like to propose that Open Sound be started as a project under the Desktop Commu
nity and should things start getting more interesting, we'll spin off as our own community. Glynn F
oster has agreed to be our sponsor.
>
>More details and source code will be made available on June 14th.
+1
(Fantastic news)
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
77
From:
Registered:
6/14/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 6, 2007 4:55 PM
in response to: dev
|
|
+1
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
>Folks,
>
>The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc.
>
>At this time, we'd like to propose that Open Sound be started as a project under the Desktop Community and should things start getting more interesting, we'll spin off as our own community. Glynn Foster has agreed to be our sponsor.
>
>More details and source code will be made available on June 14th.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>
>Dev Mazumdar
>President
>4Front Technologies
>
>
>This message posted from opensolaris.org
>_______________________________________________
>opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,495
From:
Registered:
5/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 6, 2007 4:57 PM
in response to: dev
|
|
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound
+1!
Adding icing to this cake is that Dev has been actively working
with several of us getting things ready for an OpenSolaris ARC
review of OSS as part of their initial code contribution!
Of course, this means that we in the ARC community are going to
have to figure out the logistics of making this happen - the OGB
discussion about ARC reviews seems timely indeed!
Welcome aboard Dev!!!
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,858
From:
US
Registered:
6/17/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 6, 2007 7:06 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Awesome news! I've really enjoyed the ease with which OpenSound works
on my boxes. Thanks 4Front!
-- richard
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
124
From:
US
Registered:
1/24/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 9:40 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Thanks for the warm reception to Open Sound. We really are looking forward to working with the community and getting the community to start looking at audio on Solaris in a serious way.
Best regards
Dev
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
RO
Registered:
6/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 10:51 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war, but is there going to be a BSD / MIT licensed version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some) of the BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL code in the base). It might not see much enthusiasm from the BSD community at large otherwise.
Still, this is great news, since OpenSound is pretty much the only way to get reliable sound drivers for UNIX.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6,807
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 11:19 AM
in response to: cmihai
|
|
Criveti Mihai writes:
> I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war, but is there going to be a BSD / MIT licensed version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some) of the BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL code in the base). It might not see much enthusiasm from the BSD community at large otherwise.
Inserting CDDL into the base, though, shouldn't be a problem, should
it?
Solaris has plenty of BSD-licensed code. ;-}
--
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:
124
From:
US
Registered:
1/24/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 12:04 PM
in response to: cmihai
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> I hope this isn't going to start some licensing war,
> but is there going to be a BSD / MIT licensed
> version? I'd really like to see this merged in (some)
> of the BSDs (OpenBSD for example won't insert GPL
> code in the base). It might not see much enthusiasm
> from the BSD community at large otherwise.
>
> Still, this is great news, since OpenSound is pretty
> much the only way to get reliable sound drivers for
> UNIX.
For the BSD folks, OSS is going to be GPLv2 + Additional rights (namely linking GPL drivers with BSD kernel ). If it's a problem we'll be happy to discuss licensing.
The main thing is that we want people to be comfortable contributing patches and code and not feel like their work is being misappropriated.
Regards
Dev Mazumdar
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 12:56 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Hello;
Great news!
Standing from my FreeBSD user point of view... I would *really* prefer the SCSL over the GPL.
Thanks so much for this!
Pedro.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 1:01 PM
in response to: pgiffuni
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Ugh.. I meant the CDDL... FreeBSD can include CDDL'd code (like ZFS) but GPL'd or even LGPL causes a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 7, 2007 1:02 PM
in response to: pgiffuni
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Ugh.. I meant the CDDL... FreeBSD can include CDDL'd code (like ZFS) but GPL'd or even LGPL causes a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
22
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 8, 2007 3:44 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I back up the idea of releasing OSS (and ZFS while we are at it), into something that BSD's can import into thier base distribution.
I work a lot with OpenBSD, and I am pretty sure that they will not be looking to import OSS because of licence restrictions (same as ZFS).
Shame...
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 8, 2007 2:08 PM
in response to: vext01
|
|
Edd wrote:
> I back up the idea of releasing OSS (and ZFS while we are at it), into something that BSD's can import into thier base distribution.
>
> I work a lot with OpenBSD, and I am pretty sure that they will not be looking to import OSS because of licence restrictions (same as ZFS).
>
>
ZFS is already ported to FreeBSD.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
22
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 11, 2007 3:27 PM
in response to: ian
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> ZFS is already ported to FreeBSD.
Yup.
OpenBSD != FreeBSD. Different projects.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
Registered:
3/1/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 10, 2007 2:10 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> The main thing is that we want people to be
> comfortable contributing patches and code and not
> feel like their work is being misappropriated.
I don't think that will be much of a problem even if OSS is released under a BSD/MIT style licence.
The advantage of choosing a BSD/MIT style licence is that about any free operating system project is able to include the OSS code into their system. An aim that is surely pursued by 4front. Choosing GPL/CDDL however, _will_ keep projects out of OSS.
It's not my intend to start a flame war here; an unbiased look at the different projects out there and their precepts regarding licences will lead to the very same conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
77
From:
Registered:
6/14/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 8, 2007 12:52 AM
in response to: dev
|
|
Is there document about the design and architecture and interface of oss ?
I believe that will be great help to the community.
Thank you
--Freeman
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
>Folks,
>
>The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc.
>
>At this time, we'd like to propose that Open Sound be started as a project under the Desktop Community and should things start getting more interesting, we'll spin off as our own community. Glynn Foster has agreed to be our sponsor.
>
>More details and source code will be made available on June 14th.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>
>Dev Mazumdar
>President
>4Front Technologies
>
>
>This message posted from opensolaris.org
>_______________________________________________
>opensolaris-discuss mailing list
>opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
707
From:
SE
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 8, 2007 11:38 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc
+1
Wow , thanks alot , OSS is really the only product out there that supports a large set of soundcards.
even some chipsets that is not widely used. OEM manufacturers are not putting CREATIVE chipsets on their MOBO's today, but use any thing they can integrate at low cost.
OSS will be a large step forward to enable general availability of audio apps regardless of what
chipset the OEM has used on the MOBO.
//Lars
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 9, 2007 1:55 AM
in response to: tunla
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
I'm looking at the flip side, hoping that this will be an opportunity
to improve support on the SPARC side (since OSS opens up the
possibility of more easily porting Linux audio and eventually MIDI apps).
Right now, although the OSS drivers exist for SPARC, there are a
number of devices they don't work so well (or at all) with;
the performance with my Logitech USB headset is poor, while
my Creative Audigy NX USB doesn't work at all. And if the Solaris
audio will move in the direction of OSS, maybe support for the
onboard audio (like what the audiocs driver presently handles)
and the Solaris compatibility devices of OSS (which presently don't
seem to work either, at least on SPARC) will improve.
I think OSS has a lot of promise, and on x86, it's about the only way to
go in many cases; but on SPARC, it needs work, and hopefully this will
let that work be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,657
From:
DE
Registered:
6/16/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 11, 2007 12:54 AM
in response to: dev
|
|
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> The rumors are true, we're planning on open sourcing Open Sound (on June 14th). We will be offering the source code under CDDL to Solaris and GPLv2 for Linux BSD, OpenServer etc.
>
> At this time, we'd like to propose that Open Sound be started as a project under the Desktop Community and should things start getting more interesting, we'll spin off as our own community. Glynn Foster has agreed to be our sponsor.
>
> More details and source code will be made available on June 14th.
+1
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland dot mainz at nrubsig dot org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
124
From:
US
Registered:
1/24/06
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 11, 2007 4:58 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
regards
Dev Mazumdar
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,710
From:
NZ
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 11, 2007 5:08 PM
in response to: dev
|
|
Dev Mazumdar wrote:
> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
>
Good move, the more useful code released under CDDL the better.
Ian
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 11, 2007 5:17 PM
in response to: dev
|
|
On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <dev at opensound dot com> wrote:
> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary
result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD
specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/
DTrace.
Personally, I don't buy it, but whatever. Licensing stinks.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,398
From:
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 12, 2007 1:05 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
>On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <dev at opensound dot com> wrote:
>> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work wit
h CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>>
>
>The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
>to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary
>result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD
>specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/
>DTrace.
The binaries are never "under the CDDL"; they are under whatever binary
license you have; the source is under the CDDL.
I thought it was largely political "the core must be bure BSD licensed"
or some such.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling@foku...
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 12, 2007 3:37 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <dev at opensound dot com> wrote:
> >> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work wit
> h CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
> >>
> >
> >The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
> >to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary
> >result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD
> >specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/
> >DTrace.
>
> The binaries are never "under the CDDL"; they are under whatever binary
> license you have; the source is under the CDDL.
Smilar rules apply to the GPL. It is a common misstake to believe that
binaries from GPLd sources are under the GPL.
Binaries cannot be distributed under a license that is in conflict with
the source license, that's all.
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
From:
Menlo Park, CA
Registered:
6/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 12, 2007 10:55 AM
in response to: casper
|
|
It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
http://openbsd.org/policy.html
The important section to this discussion would be the one on the GPL and
copyleft; they don't like it. They would be willing to consider it for
non-core things as long as it's separable-- so that OpenBSD itself can
be put into commercial products without source release.
The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft
which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD.
Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask
their founder; I know that Theo (deraadt at theos dot com) has always been
willing to share his beliefs on licensing.
---Brendan O'Connor
Casper.***@Sun.COM wrote:
>> On 11/06/07, Dev Mazumdar <dev at opensound dot com> wrote:
>>> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work wit
> h CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>> The only complaint I've ever seen is about header files not being able
>> to be included by default in the kernel and then have the binary
>> result distributed and not be CDDL. But that wasn't OpenBSD
>> specifically. Its the same complaint being made by BSD folks w/
>> DTrace.
>
> The binaries are never "under the CDDL"; they are under whatever binary
> license you have; the source is under the CDDL.
>
>
> I thought it was largely political "the core must be bure BSD licensed"
> or some such.
>
> Casper
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 12, 2007 11:47 AM
in response to: ussjoin
|
|
On 12/06/07, Brendan O'Connor <bfo at sun dot com> wrote:
> It doesn't appear that OpenBSD's problem is political in nature.
>
> http://openbsd.org/policy.html
>
> The important section to this discussion would be the one on the GPL and
> copyleft; they don't like it. They would be willing to consider it for
> non-core things as long as it's separable-- so that OpenBSD itself can
> be put into commercial products without source release.
>
> The CDDL, while it's GPL-incompatible, still includes some copyleft
> which would seem to make it subject to this same restriction in OpenBSD.
> Of course, the way to get a definitive answer on that would be to ask
> their founder; I know that Theo (deraadt at theos dot com) has always been
> willing to share his beliefs on licensing.
They seem to treat all copyleft licenses as one requiring all works be
distributed under them, meaning, they don't seem to fairly or
accurately represent other copyleft licenses such as MPL, CDDL, etc.
As you said, someone just needs to ask Theo.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
12
From:
Registered:
3/9/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 13, 2007 7:07 PM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for
> BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL
> since FreeBSD and NetBSD can.
>
>
> regards
> Dev Mazumdar
Hello;
I suggested the CDDL for the BSDs too so I won't hide I like this decision very much. Thank you!
That said, I wanted to clarify this: while FreeBSD and NetBSD *can* include CDDL code, it's not sure they will. In the past the *BSD version of OSS was released under a BSD license and the linux version was released under the GPL. FreeBSD still carries the BSD-licensed version and a Google SoC project updated the API wrt the 4.0 version. I think FreeBSD will keep the BSD version in the tree and will move slowly to the new OSS version depending on it's merits. Why slowly? they have done a pretty good job recently to keep many drivers (notably HDA) working and there's no need to replace it soon.
I probably shouldn't ask this: but perhaps the Artistic license would be as near as OSS could go to make the code as free as possible, still keeping some control over it? I suspect it would be more acceptable for the BSDs, except of course for OpenBSD that still expects that the world to adapt to their own little world, and won't accept the artistic license either, but maybe it's a further incentive for the other BSDs. I don't know... just a wild guess. Another option would be to make have the code become BSDL after a period of time (2010?). That has been an incentive for other code that has made it into the base system like vinum and the softupdates code.
I do hate licensing issues and I will get with whatever works for most people ;-).
Thanks again for making OSS opensource!
Pedro.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
RO
Registered:
6/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 7:25 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
It may be too late now, but I was kind of hoping you'd reconsider an MIT or BSD license. The way I see it, integrating OSS into the BSD projects (be it FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD of even MirOS) would have been a great chance at recruiting good developers. And none of the BSD projects have a proper sound system at the moment.
Sure, OpenSolaris is the prime target here, and I'm sure there will be a good amount of community action, but I don't see any harm in making it BSD.
Linux already has ALSA, then there's PulseAudio for a sound system... it might be a bit complicated to penetrate that market.
Integration into Solaris and BSD projects would guarantee success, even on the Linux market. And a common framework would be wonderfull.
Also, your FAQ:
http://developer.opensound.com/opensource_oss/licensing.html
is very unclear in terms of licensing (CDDL 1.0 for operating systems that have their full source code available under the CDDL or BSD licenses.).
There's virtually no real life OS (worth mentioning) that has their entire source code available under only one license. It bad be BSD, MIT (lighter version of the 3 clause BSD license), 4 clause BSD license and so on. Most also incorporate GPL in some form or another (as compiler tools or libraries).
I just can't see how this is legally binding. You either make it part of your license (and then it's not CDDL, and it's a licensing nightmare where you're not sure it's legal or not to use it) or you stick to a generic license and that's it.
This whole: It's GPL for this, it's CDDL for that, but there's FAQs and exceptions can lead to confusion from most projects, I'd hate to see the project stale due to such things.
- "A: Non open sourced operating systems such as SCO UnixWare/OpenServer are not covered by the above open source licenses. However we have decided to release the source code of OSS also for them. Users of such operating systems will need a commercial license from 4Front Technologies to use the software legally."
I can't see how this would be legally binding either. Or make any sense. By all means, I don't think it would matter in any form if SCO raped and pillaged every source code on the planet, with their current financial situation, they are going down.
The answers from some OpenSource community leaders might not have been appropriate in this case, maybe even discouraging, but they tend to stick by an inflexible policy in terms of licensing.
Thanks again for going open source, and thanks go to your sponsor too :-).
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5,504
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 8:08 AM
in response to: cmihai
|
|
Criveti Mihai wrote:
> Also, your FAQ:
> http://developer.opensound.com/opensource_oss/licensing.html
> is very unclear in terms of licensing (CDDL 1.0 for operating systems that have their full source code available under the CDDL or BSD licenses.).
That certainly does not include Solaris nor OpenSolaris, neither
of which have the full source code available under any license,
and which have major parts under other licenses (including GPL
portions such as GNOME & gcc).
--
-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:
4
From:
RO
Registered:
6/7/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 9:23 AM
in response to: alanc
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Hence my previous point. It should be made available under a clear and simple to understand license. Not 2 or 3 or exceptions in FAQ... GPL, but not for FreeBSD. You can't impose such restrictions in a FAQ but provide a license that says otherwise, it's not legally binding (or productive for that matter). It can't be GPL but not for FreeBSD. You have a different license and HAVE to put that in the license.
Licensing should be made clear on the page: This code is now available under the terms of the INSERT LICENSE HERE.
Licensing is quite a complex issue in this case. If you go GPL, it's not compatible with CDDL. So you can't include that in OpenSolaris (or *BSD for other reasons). If you go CDDL, you can't include that in Linux.
If you'd want any support from the BSD crowd, it would have to be licensed under a MIT or BSD license, or they simply won't include it in base, and develop their own sound systems in parallel. As for Linux, they already have ALSA, expect heavy competition.
If this was a common framework, portable to every UNIX and *NIX operating system, available under a MIT or BSD style license, with a common API it could prove to be quite a huge step for sound support on UNIX.
Don't scare developers away trying to figure out if it's legal or not to use your product..
I'm not saying this out of love for some BSD or whatever, I'd just like to see OpenSound succeed as a common UNIX framework for sound.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 10:40 AM
in response to: cmihai
|
|
On 14/06/07, Criveti Mihai <cmihaibsd at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> Hence my previous point. It should be made available under a clear and simple to understand license. Not 2 or 3 or exceptions in FAQ... GPL, but not for FreeBSD. You can't impose such restrictions in a FAQ but provide a license that says otherwise, it's not legally binding (or productive for that matter). It can't be GPL but not for FreeBSD. You have a different license and HAVE to put that in the license.
>
I think you're misunderstanding what was done.
I don't believe they are trying to impose restrictions with their FAQ.
Rather they are indicating that certain operating specific system code
is only available under a specific license.
The license is just GPL for one tarball and just CDDL for the other
tarball they released.
It really isn't any more complex than that.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
476
From:
AU
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 12, 2007 3:44 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
This is great!
Hopefully this will bring back people in the Linux camp who have shifted to ALSA; which has all the marks of a proprietary solution except it's under the GPL ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 6:36 AM
in response to: dev
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
Well, I see that the code is out there:
http://developer.opensound.com/sources/
Thank you!
Now, if anyone starts working on it for Solaris, would they
_please_ post, blog, or otherwise share whatever they learn
in the process? Especially wrt effective problem reporting,
troubleshooting, etc? And from my perspective, double-especially
on SPARC, where it may need a bit more work? I'd _really_ like
to be able to use it so as to get more (OSS-aware) audio and MIDI
apps, but for me that would require:
* legacy /dev/audio and /dev/audioctl support to work
(so I can use the apps I have as well as the new ones I want)
* better performance on USB devices (simple Logitech headset has
glitches&drops plugged into a USB2.0 board on a Sun Blade 2000,
yet runs great with the native usb_as driver.
* Audigy NX USB won't come out of "mute" state.
* some not-too-expensive USB<->MIDI interface to work (for sending,
and ideally also for receiving, MIDI commands).
I've got a fair bit of a clue on general troubleshooting (although not yet
with dtrace), less of a clue on kernel stuff (I could understand or do a
_really_simple_ driver, but this hardly simple!), and very little as yet on OSS,
digital audio, or MIDI.
And...do we get a mailing list/Jive forum assuming the project proposal was approved?
While signing up for 4frpnts oss-devel mailing list might be great for general
stuff (and I just did), I don't know that it would be much help for Solaris-specific stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 7:21 AM
in response to: rlhamil
|
|
On 14/06/07, Richard L. Hamilton <rlhamil at smart dot net> wrote:
> on SPARC, where it may need a bit more work? I'd _really_ like
> to be able to use it so as to get more (OSS-aware) audio and MIDI
> apps, but for me that would require:
>
> * legacy /dev/audio and /dev/audioctl support to work
> (so I can use the apps I have as well as the new ones I want)
That's already there; I'm sure it might still be able to use
improvement, but it is definitely not completely missing.
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,580
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Project Proposal: Open Sound System
Posted:
Jun 14, 2007 6:03 PM
in response to: swalker
To: OpenSolaris » discuss
|
|
> > * legacy /dev/audio and /dev/audioctl support to
> work
> > (so I can use the apps I have as well as the new
> ones I want)
>
> That's already there; I'm sure it might still be able
> to use
> improvement, but it is definitely not completely
> missing.
There, yes. Works (I _did_ say "to work")...not for me on SPARC
(snv_41; old, but if it works on S10 it should certainly work on that, I think).
|
|
|
|
|
