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...

[Pedro Giffuni]

--- Lun 2/7/12, David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org> ha scritto:
...
> 
> 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.

I tend to agree with the Illumos community on that however
we may still be seeing some movement in that area. Oracle
has a linux distribution and commercial interests are
always strong in unpredicable ways.

Oracle has been porting Dtrace to Linux. Apparently they
will be adopting dual GPLv2/CDDL for some few kernel
stuff and CDDL only for the main code, but just the same
there may be some stuff we want to take from them.

> 
> 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.
> 

I think Martin Matuska did exactly the right thing:
he created the illumos vendor branch starting from
the opensolaris branch.

> 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.
> 

I am somewhat biased here because I am a committer in
Apache OpenOffice and I have find it very valuable that
SUN/Oracle kept the Contributor License Agreements in
place to effectively permit relicensing.

Concerning ZFS: the main developer of the encryption stuff
did stay at Oracle. At this time that code will not be seen
in the open (apparently there was a Solaris 11 source leak
but that's not something we can touch), but we just never
know.

> 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'?
> 

Illumos is a fork so svn copy works just fine for this, plus
copying is a very cheap operation in SVN.

Cheers,

Pedro.