Subject: Re: OVPL / CDDL (OSCON meeting)
From: David Barrett <>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:43:15 -0800

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 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..
> 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