svn commit: r237624 - in head: cddl/contrib/opensolaris/cmd/dtrace/test/tst/common/llquantize cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libdtrace/common sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/dtrace sys/cddl/c...

[David O'Brien]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> You are absolutely right. However I am not sure we should
> bring Illumos enhancements under the opensolaris vendor
> branch. The reason is that this files are CDDL'd but are
> there was no property assignment done to the OpenSolaris
> copyright owner. [1]

I've closely followed the Illumos project (if you're every visiting the
Silicon Valley at the right time they have some good usergroup talks).

At this point Illumos is the continuation of OpenSolaris.
When Solaris 11 came out there was a discussion about if Oracle will
fulfill the statement in their leaked email about publishing sources
again.  There is little to no hope in the Illumos community this will
ever happen.
[http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/2011/11/sort/thread/page/1/
 "Solaris 11 released -- chances of source code to follow?"]
[https://blogs.oracle.com/orasysat/entry/summary_of_the_solaris_11
 "Any plans to release Solaris 11 source code? i.e. opensolaris?"

So I am comfortable with using the Illumos repository as the master
source for '^/vendor{,-sys}/opensolaris'.  But I recognize not everyone
may feel this way.  So we should discuss how to handle
OpenSolaris-derived Intellectual Property.

It may be conceptually cleaner to import into
'^/vendor{,-sys}/illumos', but I believe that will cause issues with
importing updates to existing files (e.g., r237458) as the 'svn merge'
from '^/vendor{,-sys}' will get messy.  I believe we may have to resort
to a three-way merge using "--ignore-ancestry" -- something I don't
believe we want to do.

Thus I think this needs to be discussed with the repo Meisters.


> If somehow Oracle decides to relicense Dtrace or ZFS we
> still must keep these changes isolated from the code
> provided in the vendor branch.

I don't quite follow.

Lets suppose we don't import anything from Illumos, but wait for the
Solaris 11 code drop.  Should DTrace or ZFS be relicensed, IMHO it
should still get imported into '^/vendor{,-sys}/opensolaris' as that
is the progression of that Intellectual Property.
'^/vendor{,-sys}/opensolaris' states no license.  What we would have to
do is 'svn move' the resulting merge outside of 'head/{,sys}/cddl/'.



> I think we have to decide if we are going to consider
> Illumos a vendor on it's own. For ZFS it would seem
> the right thing to do, for Dtrace I am not sure: at
> least I am not considering bringing any other feature
> at this time.

Given the number of primary authors & architects of both ZFS and
DTrace that have left Oracle/Sun, the works of those folks are the
things I believe FreeBSD is interested in.  In fact the ZFS Working
Group is external to Oracle and Solaris.

Doesn't this commit of yours which brought in new DTrace work by Joyent
(likely Brendan Gregg or Bryan Cantrill) show this point?

Perhaps we should do an 'svn move' of '^/vendor{,-sys}/opensolaris'
to '^/vendor{,-sys}/illumos'?


What are your thoughts?

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)