Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Jul 2010 16:48 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris This morning, at the OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) meeting, the following was proposed and unanimously resolved: "The OGB is keen to promote the uptake and open development of OpenSolaris and to work on behalf of the community with Oracle, as such the OGB needs Oracle to appoint a liaison by August 16, 2010, who has the the authority to talk about the future of OpenSolaris and its interaction with the OpenSolaris community otherwise the OGB will take action at the August 23 meeting to trigger the clause in the OGB charter that will return control of the community to Oracle."
Thread beginning with comment 433417
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

MySQL have community, and if Oracle tries to kill MySQL, forks will take over. There are already few forks like MariaDB, Drizzle, XtraDB... but nobody takes notice of those because Oracle is currently behaving ok and not trying to kill MySQL. As I said, GPL makes dictatorship to be benevolent, and if dictator is harmful to the project, then project will fork away.

Also, I don't think that copyright assignment policy is bad by design, but some companies are abusing it.

As for Debian interpretation of CDDL..? What issue are you implying? One with cdrtools, or one with sunos port?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Copyright assignment policies allow centralized copyright control and even though Oracle does release MySQL under the GPL, the license does not apply to Oracle and Oracle is free to sell proprietary versions.

If you want forks, OpenSolaris has several derivatives and forks that already exist. Again, CDDL does not prevent that at all.

As far as Debian is concerned, it has no lawyers and interpretation of license is done by developers which is problematic and in the case of porting, it was not prevented by CDDL. Debian might have thought so but does not make it correct.

Reply Parent Score: 2

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

Ok, you are dismissing Debian because they are no lawyers so they know nothing. IIRC, Debian issues with CDDL were:

-choice of venue clause, fixed at Santa Clara for OpenSolaris, but changeable for other projects written by others. That in fact creates a separate versions of CDDL, for example Sun's one is with Santa Clara, but some dude would chose his district and effectively make it incompatible with Sun's version. Only way to get around of this issue would be to force everyone into choosing Santa Clara venue, same as Sun. Of course, this was problem for Sun because they ask for copyright assignment so that they not need to worry about that. But it could pose great problem for Debian if they allowed themselves to be dependent on CDDL code, because some (most?) of contributors are not comfortable with assigning copyrights to public company, and don't live in Santa Clara so they can be conformable with choosing it.

-choice of law clause, more or less same issue as above. When you take code from "CDDL Santa Clara" source file, you can't put it into "CDDL Mexico" source file, you can only link it. But that would create legal mess for project like Debian which like you said, has no lawyers.


-patent clause of CDDL is to narrow and only protects corporations with patents. If you have no patents to strike back, it only protects "Original Software", effectively meaning that if Oracle stops releasing OpenSolaris, forks will not get patent grant. Also, patent grant ceases if certain source files are removed. Read CDDL and look at definition of "Original Software", and license grants wrt section 2.


About forks, well did you know that NetApp is chasing ZFS storage start-ups for patent infringement? You know why? Because they are cutting deal with Larry. NetApp exterminates ZFS startups, and Larry position (newly re-branded) ZFS Storage appliance in a way that it doesn't threaten NetApp's proprietary WAFL. That means they stall open source development, and kill it of at the end, continuing only proprietary branch of Solaris. If FreeBSD (or FreeNAS) moves to threaten WAFL with ZFS storage, it could get sued too.

Edited 2010-07-14 07:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4