Very Computer

A few hours ago, Sun announced on

        http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/

the availability of the Solaris 8 source code.

You may get the sources via the internet but you need
to print/fill/fax the license aggreement first to get
a license number (whithin 72 hours).

If I understand the license correctly, modifications must
be put on the Sun web server to prevent sharing with
non-licensees.

The source is in ZIP :-( Format and 183.42 MB  in size
so I expect that many parts are missing because they are
not owned by Sun.

As I have no fax at home it seems that I would not be able
to get access before wednesday :-(

--



URL:  http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling    ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

Quote:> A few hours ago, Sun announced on

>    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/

> the availability of the Solaris 8 source code.

Cool at last!

Quote:> As I have no fax at home it seems that I would not be able
> to get access before wednesday :-(

Luckily, I do - and as it's Saturday, the line wasn't busy when
I sent off my fax.  :-)

--
Rich Teer

NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.

The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.  (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

WARNING: This is 2.8 _FCS_... ;-(
I assume there's no way to get updates, right ?

What about other sources like Motif, OpenWindows and CDE ? Are they
included ?

Quote:> Cool at last!

Yup !! :-)))

----

Bye,
Roland

--
  __ .  . __


  /O /==\ O\  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
 (;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359

I would expect that for legal reasons nothing will be included
for which Sun does not have the complete ownership
over the source code.

Thomas

;-((

What about source for /usr/sbin/keyserv (would be nice to hack keyserv
to allow "forwarning" of Secure RPC key in Kerb5 environments...) ?

----

Bye,
Roland

--
  __ .  . __


  /O /==\ O\  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
 (;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359

Quote:>A few hours ago, Sun announced on

>    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/

>the availability of the Solaris 8 source code.
>...

>If I understand the license correctly, modifications must
>be put on the Sun web server to prevent sharing with
>non-licensees.

Right. And once you sign it, ***ANY** code that "implements documented
interfaces"  (eg >>>any solaris driver you write<<<) then becomes
bound by the license. You dont get to publically share it any more.

Keeping that in mind, I presume you will NOT be signing this, Joerg? !!

--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]

The word of the day is mispergitude

Yep.

--
Rich Teer

NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.

The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.  (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

Quote:> [Joerg Schilling wrote]

>> > > > A few hours ago, Sun announced on

>> > > >       http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/

>> > > > the availability of the Solaris 8 source code.

> What about source for /usr/sbin/keyserv (would be nice to hack keyserv
> to allow "forwarning" of Secure RPC key in Kerb5 environments...) ?

But even if you modified it, you wouldn't be able to use it. The
license explictly prohibits "Internal Deployment", which I read to mean
that we can't fix bugs/misfeatures/lack of features for ourselves. One
of the attractions of having source code, for me, would be the ability
to deploy fixes that Sun won't do for us, and as far as I can see the
license prohibits that.

--
-Peter Tribble
HGMP Computing Services
http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

Does the license forbid to post diff's around ?

----

Bye,
Roland

--
  __ .  . __


  /O /==\ O\  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
 (;O/ \/ \O;) TEL +49 641 99-41370 FAX +49 641 99-41359

Yes. The only thing you can do with any source you create or modify is
give it back to Sun who will make it available to other licensees on
their web site.

It's not clear to me that access to the source would actually gain us
anything. Unless I attach the relevant snippet from the source to a
service call when reporting a bug...

--
-Peter Tribble
HGMP Computing Services
http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

Where exactly does it say so?

--
 .-.   .-.    A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.
(_  \ /  _)

     |

Section II. Purpose, says

Original Contributor is licensing the Reference Code and
Technology Specifications under and subject to this Sun
Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License (the
License) to promote research, education, innovation and
prototyping using the Technology.

INTERNAL DEPLOYMENT, COMMERCIAL USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
TECHNOLOGY AND/OR REFERENCE CODE IN SOURCE CODE OR OBJECT
CODE FORM IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

My reading (and I'm not a lawyer) is that Sun expect you to look at and
play with the source code, and possibly feed modifications back to Sun,
but that you aren't allowed to let anybody else whatsoever (section IV
part F is pretty clear) gain access to either sources or objects built
using the sources.

--
-Peter Tribble
HGMP Computing Services
http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/~ptribble/

Ah... I skipped the parts written in capitals, because I have this
strange feeling that somebody shouts at me. :-)

Quote:> My reading (and I'm not a lawyer) is that Sun expect you to look at and
> play with the source code, and possibly feed modifications back to Sun,
> but that you aren't allowed to let anybody else whatsoever (section IV
> part F is pretty clear) gain access to either sources or objects built
> using the sources.

Yes, but that's anybody else and it's somewhat strange that even you
can't use it. The definition of terms says:

Research use: ...evaluation, development, educational or personal use...

I don't see how you're supposed to do any development if you're not
permitted to use the results of your development.

--
 .-.   .-.    A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.
(_  \ /  _)

     |

Hmm, it says "INTERNAL DEPLOYMENT... OF TECHNOLOGY AND/OR REFERENCE
CODE... IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT".

It says "Reference Code" (the source code from original contributor
(sun micro?)), not "Licensee Code" (Reference Code, Contributed Code or
combinations thereof) or "Contributed Code" or "Covered Code" (what
exactly is that?) or "derivative works" of the reference code, ...

If I fix a bug, recompile and install the fixed binary, is this
deployment of the reference code or perhaps deployment of a
"derivative work" of the reference code (or if I choose to share my
fix with sun, a deployment of "contributed code"/"licensee code") ?

On the other hand, even the internal deployment of the "technology"
(``the technology described in and contemplated by the technology
specifications'') is not permittet and "technology" could be almost
everything.

Another strange thing about the licence is, that serveral aspects (for
example: "Covered Code") are defined in terms of the "technology
specifications" (``the documentation ... at the technology site''),
and you get access to that documention only after agreeing to the
licence!?