> It sounds to me like they see the value in Fedora > and don't want to give up control of it,...;-)
(Copying from a blog post I made about this)
At first I was surprised that Red Hat finds it necessary to reserve ultimate control (veto power) over the Fedora project
Veto power? The OpenSolaris Charter certainly does not grant Sun veto power. But then as I read the message more carefully and thought about it, something hit me like a bolt.
First, some background: It's important to understand what exactly OpenSolaris is (and isn't). Unlike Fedora, OpenSolaris is purely a co-development project built around a code base. In other words, we do not conflate the OpenSolaris project/code with any of the distros derived from it. By contrast, Fedora is all three conflated into one: a) the Fedora co-development process b.) the Fedora code-base and c.) the Fedora distro.
How does this relate to community self-governance?
With OpenSolaris, one set of policies and procedures (the recently ratified OpenSolaris Charter) applies specifically to the co-development project and, by association, the code-base. This charter is community-driven. A separate set of policies and procedures applies to Solaris Express -- Sun's bi-weekly OpenSolaris based distro. This distro is Sun-driven and of course nobody objects to Sun controlling it because anyone can create their own OpenSolaris-based distro. (And as everybody knows, SchilliX, BeleniX, and Nexenta, have done exactly that.)
Maybe RedHat should adopt this concept? It certainly stands to reason that the Fedora community developers would like it better...
Bravo to author Andy Bakun for writing this article about F/OSS (UNIX/Linux) technologies without implying that the article is targeted for any particular open-source OS. In other words, it's equally relevant on all of the open-source OS's -- the BSDs, the OpenSolaris based distros and the Linuxes.
Reading these threads, here are some points that I think need to be stressed:
The CDDL isn't "Sun's license" any more than, e.g., the MPL is Mozilla.org's license, etc.
Obviously, there are a lot of open-source developers who don't like the GPL. (Just look at the huge number of important applications that use other open-source licenses.)
Of those developers, will the CDDL be viewed as a step forward? Will it be viewed (after the dust settles) as one of the best of the open-source licenses they could use?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, the better documented an open-source piece is, the more open it is, commensurately.
And although admittedly I'm biased this is an area OpenSolaris is really known for.E.g. See:
Here are some archived Sun employee blog posts about SGD (aka Tarantella, aka Secure Global Desktop).
-Eric Boutilier
And regarding Solaris and PostgreSQL, here's a blog post that I wrote a while back that points to some resource on that topic.
> It sounds to me like they see the value in Fedora ;-)
> and don't want to give up control of it,...
(Copying from a blog post I made about this)
At first I was surprised that Red Hat finds it necessary to reserve ultimate control (veto power) over the Fedora project
Veto power? The OpenSolaris Charter certainly does not grant Sun veto power. But then as I read the message more carefully and thought about it, something hit me like a bolt.
First, some background: It's important to understand what exactly OpenSolaris is (and isn't). Unlike Fedora, OpenSolaris is purely a co-development project built around a code base. In other words, we do not conflate the OpenSolaris project/code with any of the distros derived from it. By contrast, Fedora is all three conflated into one: a) the Fedora co-development process b.) the Fedora code-base and c.) the Fedora distro.
How does this relate to community self-governance?
With OpenSolaris, one set of policies and procedures (the recently ratified OpenSolaris Charter) applies specifically to the co-development project and, by association, the code-base. This charter is community-driven. A separate set of policies and procedures applies to Solaris Express -- Sun's bi-weekly OpenSolaris based distro. This distro is Sun-driven and of course nobody objects to Sun controlling it because anyone can create their own OpenSolaris-based distro. (And as everybody knows, SchilliX, BeleniX, and Nexenta, have done exactly that.)
Maybe RedHat should adopt this concept? It certainly stands to reason that the Fedora community developers would like it better...
Eric Boutilier
OpenSolaris
Sun Microsystems
Bravo to author Andy Bakun for writing this article about F/OSS (UNIX/Linux) technologies without implying that the article is targeted for any particular open-source OS. In other words, it's equally relevant on all of the open-source OS's -- the BSDs, the OpenSolaris based distros and the Linuxes.
Eric Boutilier -- OpenSolaris
For details: Click here
And here
--Eric Boutilier
I just read a product review that had words and paragraphs but no content! No way you say?! Allow me to explain...
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier/2
Reading these threads, here are some points that I think need to be stressed:
> my question for Sun Microsystems is "all right, and what are you
> prepared to do to help a community form?"
Well, for starters, check out the OpenSolaris Community Manager's Blog and Technorati's OpenSolaris "tag" (category) site...