[OpenIndiana-discuss] Solaris 11 source code leaked?

[Gabriel de la Cruz]

Ummm, Larry has been watching epic movies again! It is a legal Trojan
horse!... how innovative!; they drop their own trade secrets marked as CDDL
and wait for the unaware computer enthusiast to use it and sue him badly!
He is truly worst than Gargamel...

Well the only option he had to prevent anyone using the work built on the
top of CDDL code was to keep it for himself... certainly sharing it in
bittorrent was not a good idea. Larry, no, no, no... that was a silly thing
to do.

Considering the possibilities I would say that someone within Oracle shared
the code, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to modify the code.
Those might be just newer versions of stuff released previously... maybe
someone should try to figure it out.

Such a pretty girl... but... I know nothing about her past... ummm should I
stay away from her?... well maybe not, maybe it is a better idea to meet
her a bit better.


On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jamon Camisso <jamonation at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no way of knowing if the source has been altered or tampered with.
>
> Short of a cryptographically signed release or a statement from oracle,
> best and safest option is to ignore it and stay far far away from the code.
>
> Jamon
>
> Nikola M <minikola at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Open Indiana wrote:
> >> It's like sneezing in a dark-room, now Oracle can wait outside to see
> who
> >> all catched the flue.
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >Maybe it is truly CDDL for the parts marked like that,
> >besides, why would Oracle keep CDDL headers if it is not CDDL anymore?
> >
> >Also CDDL is saying derived work holds the same license as previous CDDL
> >work. That goes for Oracle Solaris 11.
> >
> >If Internally in Oracle, source is developed with CDDL headers and
> >developing on top of already open and existing CDDL licensed code, then
> >does it matter WHO released the code?
> >
> >Solaris11 It is derived work from Opensolaris, it is same-licensed, it
> >is CDDL.
> >And maybe Oracle just does not want to acknowledge publicly that Solaris
> >11 is open product, like it was Opensolaris.
> >Or it was planned at some later time to be publicized.
> >
> >*Best option is to develop Illumos separately but with S11 CDDL-ed code
> >released it leaves Oracle the ability to import Illumos changes they
> >like, because their S11 code is published.
> >
> >Anyway, one Oracle statement about S11 source that is marked with CDDL
> >and released, might prove beneficial to Oracle and anyone else.
> >Maybe Oracle did not want to make CDDL-derived work available, using its
> >power of owning rights to Opensolaris code itself,
> >but once CDDL-ed derived work is published, it stays as it is and it
> >seems to me there is no coming back for Oracle,
> >but to play with the crowd and acknowledge S11 is open source, under
> >CDDL and use it to boost Solaris11 support and hardware sales.
> >CDDL enforces its license on derived work on similar way Mozilla license
> >and GPL licenses do.
> >Maybe releasing the S11 code is best thing for Oracle, anyway.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
> >OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> >http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>