[indiana-discuss] License and redistribution of the OpenSolaris updates

[Tim Cramer]

So your assertions are correct.  If you add non-redistributable code to 
OpenSolaris then it isn't redistributable, that doesn't mean it isn't 
free, but would require more licenses or potentially other encumberences 
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)

To answer both your and James questions on this, as well as a private 
email I received on the subject:
We'll start with something obvious and then go to something more 
esoteric as examples.   If Oracle decided to port their database to 
OpenSolaris and then wanted to sell and have a presence not only at 
oracle.com but on pkg.sun.com to get additional eyeballs then if you 
added that to your custom made distrubtion you'd have to negotiate with 
Oracle on how to license/redistribute that hybrid.   I don't think 
there's much argument on that and is an example of something that would 
require you to have the credit card handy, but wouldn't really surprise 
anyone.

A more esoteric example would be encumbered fonts.  Sun licenses some 
fonts and pays fees to be able to distribute them with products, but it 
isn't allowed to have the randomly redistributed.   These fonts won't 
require payment by the end user, but would require them to go through a 
click-through license which defined the terms of use of the fonts 
(explicitly stating non-redistribution).   If someone wanted to use 
those fonts in their custom distribution, they would have to determine 
how to get that license such that they could redistribute it.

A final example is that Sun will sell support for 2008.05.  Packages 
with fixed escalations will be put into a special paid repository 
available to holders of support licenses, and fixed in the next general 
release of OpenSolaris (note: since the change will go into the main 
codeline, anyone running the latest build would be able to also get the 
fix, but would have to run that latest build to get it and would be on 
an unsupported branch of the code).  

To answer the anonymous question I received which was to list those FOSS 
packages that we support vs. those we don't and that we must support 
some FOSS packages... you are correct and I was oversimplifying the 
answer.   I don't have the list of those supported vs. those that 
aren't.  Anything considered part of the core of OpenSolaris would be on 
the supported list, and those things that aren't would be done via best 
effort but wouldn't be officially supported.

Tim

Sean Sprague wrote:
> Tim,
>
> All right, I have my "thick idiot" hat well and truly in place for this.
>
>> There are 2 separate things.
>> 1. OpenSolaris 2008.05 and all software packages on 
>> pkg.opensolaris.org which are fully redistributable are free to use 
>> and deploy.
>>   
>
> All fine and understood.
>
>> 2. There will be a set of non-redistributable software which may 
>> require either payment or simply a click-through type license which 
>> will be on pkg.sun.com, which you can freely (or use via payment 
>> where applicable) use but can't redistribute.   We expect this to be 
>> available sometime in mid to late June.
>>   
>
> Now here's where I have a comprehension problem. Firstly OpenSolaris 
> is the first fully-redistributable Sun-crafted operating environment.  
> Now you say that  on top of this, from pkg.sun.com you can layer 
> software which renders your base OpenSolaris installation no longer 
> open and redistributable. This feels the same as building opensolaris 
> from the code base, and then having to include all the closed-bins 
> stuff to make it no longer fully open. So realistically, for your 
> distro-developer, you have to say "don't install anything from 
> pkg.sun.com, otherwise you could will be liable to be infringing 
> licensing of some kind; oh, and if you do, please have your credit 
> card handy". OK; I s'pose I can go for that. But is this correct?
>
> Reading the title of the email, "redistribution of the OpenSolaris 
> updates", surely if you install anything from pkg.sun.com, then you de 
> facto are no longer running OpenSolaris - rather just an 
> unredistributable hybrid. Rather a useless beast, as it is no longer 
> OpenSolaris - the redistributable distro, nor Solaris-anything-else; 
> and I guess no longer supportable within the OpenSolaris paid-for 
> subscription framework? Or has/is a means been/being put in place to 
> cater for this?
>
> Any clarification (even if it is just "oh be quiet and go away") 
> gratefully received.
>
> Regards... Sean.
>
>
>