License Committee Report for September 2005

Alex Bligh alex at
Fri Sep 9 09:23:48 UTC 2005


>> Russell Nelson wrote:
>>> The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL.  One set changes
>>> policy, and the other set changes implementation.  I have suggested
>>> that in order for the OVPL to not be duplicative and to increase its
>>> readability, its implementation changes should actually go into the
>>> CDDL.  I've asked the submittor to work with the CDDL stewards to get
>>> those improvements into the CDDL.  I have not gotten any cooperation.
>>> Instead, he has asked me to submit the OVPL as-is.
>> Incidentally, I think this is a fair summary, but I would suggest
>> changing "I have not gotten any cooperation" to "Alex has made private
>> and public requests to the CDDL stewards but received no response."
> Who did Alex contact? I've not been able to find a current CDDL team
> member who has heard from Alex recently (I have not) and I'm afraid that
> requests on license-discuss can easily be overlooked. As such I question
> your assertion.

I had thought in a private message I sent to claire.giordano at on 13
April 2005 that I had explicitly pointed out Sum might like not only to
review, but also use the changes we had made. On rereading it, I didn't
make that explicit in that message, although the fact we have made our
changes available to all to use was explicit in the public message I sent
to this list a day or so earlier which I take it triggered her email. It
was, however implicit, given I said we would appreciate any time Sun might
have to review the changes we'd made which, given the above, should have
made it reasonably clear we were only too happy for the results of the
review to be used. Given her note was marked "private" I don't want to
forward in its entirety. My apologies for confusion. However, I made the
offer publicly several times as you know from the mail David Ryan sent you
off-list; we made these publicly so Russ (and the rest of the world could
see) it as Russ seems to be the one most concerned about it.

Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, we (OVPL) folks are only too happy for
Sun (or indeed anyone else) to take any of the modifications we've made to
the OVPL, and retrofit them into the CDDL. We think the modifications to
the warranty clause and the liability limitation clause are likely to be
the most suitable. We understand entirely why Sun may not want to cook
up a new version just for this, or that they may not feel it a worthwhile
change, in which case we will not be the slightest bit offended.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list