OVPL / CDDL (OSCON meeting)

[David Barrett]

Excellent, thanks for the update.

-david

David Ryan wrote:
> 
> There has been some progress with the OVPL.  Alex and I had a discussion 
> with a couple of people from the OSI board earlier this week.  The 
> result of this discussion will be fed back to the rest of the board for 
> them to make their decision; hopefully at the next board meeting 
> (possibly next week).
> 
> The outcome is still not clear either way with the OVPL.
> 
> Regards,
> David.
> 
> 
> David Barrett wrote:
> 
>> Another month has gone by, and all is still silent on the OVPL front.
>>
>> So far as I can tell, *every* obstacle raised before the OVPL has been 
>> discussed and resolved, exhaustively.  The last obstacle -- the most 
>> challenging yet -- seems to just be squeezing a single word, 
>> "Approved", out of the board.  Last month, despite several requests 
>> before and after the board met, no further obstacles were raised, and 
>> no additional status was given.
>>
>> Can anything be done to ensure next month won't be equally silent?
>>
>> -david
>>
>> David Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> It sounds like that the board were to actually meet on Wednesday at 
>>> the European OSCON.  Was the OVPL discussed at all, and has the board 
>>> made a decision on how to proceed with this license?  I believe the 
>>> boards approval is the only current requirement pending for OVPL and 
>>> OVLPL.
>>>
>>> I would also be interested in other discussions the board made which 
>>> can be safely made public.  I completely agree with the sentiment of 
>>> David Barret's emails.  I understand that not all the boards business 
>>> should be made available.  However, items such as licenses discussed 
>>> and some other tid bits of information would be useful.
>>>
>>> btw.  You can play OSI's who's who here..
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/x180/sets/1145208/
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex Bligh wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am conscious there is some sort of board meeting today and wanted to
>>>> update the board on what has been happening with the discussions we've
>>>> been having with Sun re incorporating the non-OVPL-specific bits back
>>>> into the CDDL.
>>>>
>>>> I had hoped we'd have an agreed joint statement on this by today, 
>>>> but being
>>>> busy people on multiple timezones, logistics seem to have got in the 
>>>> way,
>>>> and that seems to have presented that happening up till now - I hope
>>>> it will happen in short order.
>>>>
>>>> Suffice to say, following my conversation with Simon Phipps from 
>>>> Sun, the
>>>> following have emerged:
>>>> 1. Sun is, as I understand, interested in improving the CDDL, 
>>>> especially
>>>>   improving its performance in multiple jurisdictions. They are 
>>>> interested
>>>>   in our, and anyone else's input.
>>>> 2. However, there is other work going on, and they do not envisage a 
>>>> new
>>>>   version coming out for many months (at the earliest) - any revision
>>>>   is likely to have more changes in than just the revisions we propose
>>>>   (if they take them), and be a substantial time away.
>>>> 3. Notwithstanding, we have agreed to continue to work together.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, it looks like rolling those amendments back into the CDDL is
>>>> not going to be doable in the immediate future. We therefore request
>>>> the OVPL be considered for approval as is, on the assumption Sun are
>>>> not going to make the "common changes" to the CDDL in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> 
> David Ryan. aka Oobles.
> http://www.livemedia.com.au/Blog
> 
> 
>