[oi-dev] OpenSXCE It is illegal to sell without source code.

[Nikola M.]

On 09/15/14 02:33 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nikola M. <minikola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/14/14 07:02 PM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
>>> Furthermore it is nonsense what you write about the CDDL terms. The
>>> CDDL permits the developer to keep the src closed, similar to the Xorg
>>> license.
>> I would say it is nonsense what you just said. Re-reading CDDL could
>> refresh some memories.
>> Binaries derived from CDDL distributed code that is NOT open source are
>> ILLEGAL and anyone using those binaries it can be prosecuted (in every
>> country in the world).
>> So everyone using binaries that are made from illegally closed source
>> code is in legal jeopardy.
> This is not correct: The CDDL is file based and you are allowed to add new
> files that you may keep secret. You however need to publish everything you
> modified and that was under CDDL.
Yeah, but if those file(s) that one adds to CDDL code are - Patches to 
original code,
that is the process of making new version of the code, that is actually 
changing CDDL code
  and does not represent self-sufficient library or subsystem or a file 
, that is just linked to CDDL code - Patches to CDDL are changes and 
therefore obligated to be published as original license.

If one has separate functions, libraries , files and programs, one can 
keep them for himself only, yet it is not desired, nor accepted in open 
source project.
CDDL just allows one to combine CDDL released code with libraries/files 
(not patches) that are not released in one's binary project:

  *

    *3.6. Larger Works.*

    You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with
    other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute
    the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make
    sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered
    Software.

Why would one do something like that, except for wanting to be 
compatible only with himself and tight users to only that company/or for 
closed drivers etc. But it IS giving bigger maneuvering space to 
companies and people using their products, then with OS'es with strong 
copyleft licenses.
Sun choosed CDDL to be able to integrate parts not open sourced yet, in 
OpenSolaris, because some companies holders of that code, even Sun could 
not buy out yet, to open their source.

We have on one side company spending hundreds of millions of dollars in 
companies buyouts, to be able to release source under CDDL, and on the 
other side someone not understanding that license requires him to 
release he's patches..
And patches are not files that could be left unpublished - they are 
contributions - and if not released under same license, leaves 
contributor with illegal code.

CDDL says:

  *

    *1.9. Modifications* means the Source Code and Executable form of
    any of the following:

      o

        *A.* Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or
        modification of the contents of a file containing Original
        Software or previous Modifications;

      o

        *B.* Any new file that contains any part of the Original
        Software or previous Modification; or

      o

        *C.* Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made
        available under the terms of this License.

    and

    *3.1. Availability of Source Code.*

    Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
    in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form
    and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms
    of this License.

>> This is not in the spirit of Copyleft license like CDDL, where changed code is obliged to be released both to the end user and to the public, the moment when derived binaries are distributed.
>> CDDL is weak copyleft, like LGPL, where one can mix CDDL with otherwise licensed files,
>> but changes in CDDL code must be released or they represent violation of the license for all users of binaries and are not legal to use unless code is open..
> This is why Oracle it in conflict with the CDDL.
>
> Oracle does not own all code from OpenSolaris and for this reason, Oracle would
> need to make all related code available in case they modified the code compared
> to the version from August 2010.
I agree with you, Yet you could consider also some other approaches such 
large company could take, besides from taking back all outside 
contributed changes , rewriting any external code with their own 
versions, being covered by code contribution contracts from Sun days on 
top od CDDL, and the fact that CDDL itself states that Sun and now 
Oracle is the license Stewart and can change license to whatever they want.

My interpretation is, like you, that once opened code can not be made 
closed again, (together with all individual contributions with their 
copyrights), not even by Oracle.
Yet there could be interpretations that give exclusivity to Oracle to do 
whatever they want with code prior to closing source S11 Oracle schism.

One more interpretation of CDDL is that even all illumos changes could 
be used by Oracle, since Sun's name as the license steward is still 
inside CDDL license used by illumos.
I was quickly told that is not the case and that Solaris can not 
directly reuse illumos code.
But question remains: How license steward could be actually stopped from 
doing with CDDL licensed code anything he likes, on any given moment, 
when he is in exclusive position to be able to change license?

And also I think that you are right, CDDL stating that changed source 
must be open after changes are made, is what actually stops Oracle from 
including illumos code, because then S11 code would need to be fully 
open sourced.
And yet, that is exactly what some people are trying to do against CDDL 
provisions, trying to make closed source out of open. But they are not 
Oracle and they are forking from illumos, nor Opensolaris.
> As Oracle does not own the rights, Oracle cannot convert CDDLd code to closed
> source. But even if they could, they would be in confict with the German law as
> the German law forbids to sell copies of copyrighted material in case the
> owners of the code are not payed fairly or the code is OSS. Given the fact that
> Sun did not pay me for the the code I added to "hsfs" (I own aprox. 1/3 of the
> code) Oracle is illegally distributing copies of Solaris.
>
> Jörg
It truly seems that, like when it was required to turn closed code into 
open to make Opensolaris open source, it was needed to make payments to 
companies owning code, prior releasing it,
that in the same way - turning open and free software contributions into 
the proprietary code,
also requires payment to all contributors to the code and therefore 
impossible if not Very rich.

Yet, there are positions that Sun and now Oracle reserved for them 
exclusively that could be taken into account.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://openindiana.org/pipermail/oi-dev/attachments/20140917/5cc2d088/attachment-0005.html>