Thomas Burgess wrote:
"There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward,
similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the
stack," Roberts said. "It's important to understand the plan now is to
deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time
measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open."
"This will be a balancing act, one that we'll get right sometimes,
but may not always."
-------------
>From the feedback data I've seen customers dislike this type of
licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I'd
strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing more I don't
know what alternative I could recommend though.. (Too bad I missed
that irc meeting..)
./C
I may be wrong, but isn't this already what they do? I mean, there is
a bunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn't make it into
opensolaris. I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i
misunderstanding something.
Not exactly.. From my understanding.. (and I put a lot of time removing
the proprietary "stuff") is that for OpenSolaris the closed parts simply
weren't available under and open source license.
example..
tail/cli - Probably from 20+ years ago and it's exact origins may not be
all known
libc - The wide character support in libc from IBM, who isn't exactly
open source friendly
drivers - I didn't look into specific things with drivers and just never
used them.
C++ runtime/compilers - no comment :)
With regards to the 7000 series or other appliances which may bring the
trolls further... Personally, I consider that an appliance and not
OpenSolaris proper.. I don't know where I draw the line, but I'd be
disappointed if zfs didn't have all the full features in OpenSolaris,
but also surprised if the landscape and management interfaces were made
open source.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
