Slashdot Mirror
Sun Submits New License for Open Source Approval
Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Sun has submitted their Common Development and Distribution License to the Open Source Initiative for approval as an Open Source license. It appears that this license is what Sun plans to release Solaris under according to an article at news.com.com.com. Of particular note is: 'The CDDL is not expected to be compatible with the GPL, since it contains requirements that are not in the GPL,' Claire Giordano of Sun's CDDL team said in its submission."
news.com.com.com? are you sure it isn't news.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.c om.com.com.com.com.com?
I am glad to see sun going in to an open source direction, but how long will it last this time?
When Solaris 8 source was released, it was not exaclty open source, and did not last long at all.
The implication here is that there's something bad about them not wanting to GPL their source. Why should they? Simply making it open source of some kind seems good enough. That way we get to see it and potentially modify it for our own benefit. Not having read their proposed license, I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code. And why should they? It's their family jewels, and I see no reason they should allow competitors to take it and run.
...if the license doesn't follow BSD or GPL methodology. Most of the UN*X geeks that I know (including myself) subscribe to one or the other established licenses either because we want our work to be out there for the benefit of everyone, even if it is used in commercial applications and closed (BSD) or because we want it out there and we want it to remain out there because it was hard work, and not be closed (GPL). I don't see any other positions really available to coders who don't want their code to be rendered unavailable to the public at large.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Aren't there enough licences to pick from? Apparently not.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
A kiss - because they're still trying to somehow connect their business with Open Source movement. They're making new license for every product they release to the Community, but none of these licenses is compatible with GPL. Which is OK for me, I'm not a religious fanatic, I just want my software to be free (as in beer) and usable - and Sun's product's I'm using are free (as in beer), regardless of what you might say.
A kick - because they still prefer business. Novell and Mandrake can somehow make it with GPL - maybe Sun should also try?
Well, that makes me happy. It seems to say that if you hold the Sun license, you can't patent-shakedown anybody in the Sun community. I'll buy that; getting this kind of license adopted by many people is probably the only way to end the horror. I'd be interested to see whether Microsoft gets all ornery about this license.
Of course, I'm also interested to see how much I'll get flamed by even implying support for a license besides the GNU GPL.
I find the "patent peace" provision very interesting. If I am reading this right, basically what this does is make the Sun license viral-- becuase if you do not switch to the Sun license, you lose your patent protections. Is this correct?
counter-disclosure: I read about this on CNet, just like everyone else, and I don't know any more about this than is available at Sun's CDDL site. Also, I don't really work anywhere near the Solaris group.
The CDDL is just a refinement of the MPL-- and I've read the redline diffs, and there doesn't seem to be anything sinister or extra-restrictive about the changes.
The MPL is nice, in that it is propagative but not viral. That is, if you distribute a modified binary you have to distribute the source for your modifications, but you can use MPL-licensed code in a larger project without any effect at all on the license of the larger project.
The only reason GPL compatibility is even an issue is that there was some hope that Solaris code could be picked up and used in Linux-- which I really think was pretty optimistic. Techniques learned from the Solaris source may be transferrable, though, and I think still will be as long as the Solaris source is truly open.
I'm still not sure about this key question:
Is it now possible to put Sun's funky new filesystem straight into Linux, or does someone have to rewrite it?
When they say not-GPL-compatible, I assume no, but I'd like someone with a better grasp of this to confirm it.
How does this compare to the Apple Public Source License?
You cannot take code out of any funky-Sun-licensed product and put it into Linux. In order to redistribute Linux you must be able to release the entire Linux codebase under the terms of the GPL. The funky-Sun-license terms prevent that.
But you could take code out of a funky-Sun-licensed product and put it into a Linux kernel module, because there are no license restrictions on Linux kernel modules. Filesystem support can be added by kernel module.
I don't see why couldn't go with one of the existing licenses: surely, among BSD, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, and all the other already approved licenses, they could have found something. Based on Sun's history and relationship with open source, I would wait for a careful review: it is quite possible that Sun is trying to slip something in there.
(Of course, the license is only on Solaris, so it doesn't really matter that much anyway. If Sun used this for Java, it would matter more.)
Why not do like Vim or Perl which are dual licensing? Whether to use their own license (charityware for Vim, artistic for Perl), but if one wants to develop GPL software based on them, one can
just do it.
A summary of the changes, including why they felt the MPL didn't give them entirely what they wanted - they make it clear that they didn't want to create yet another license.
A details description of the differences.
In their submission they also say:
Your post is semantically void.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
No one in their right mind would start a new project using the GPL. The GPL doesn't provide patent protection. With all the patent litigation lately it would reflect poorly on Sun to kick off such a large project using an outdated license that doesn't cover the legal issues developers face today.
Most new OSI-approved licenses seem to cover patents in some form. There's even talk about a new version of the GPL that will, but as of now there's nothing.
Using the GPL would have earned them a kick in my book.
Of course, if you (or anyone else here for that matter) are complaining without actually knowing the rationale behind the license, you should go take a look at Sun's detailed description of the license.
The implication here is that there's something bad about them not wanting to GPL their source.
Yes, there is something "bad" about it. It's not "bad" as in "badly behaved" or "bad dog" or "bad person", it's "bad" as in "bad idea" or "bad legal advice" or "bad business".
Why should they?
Because, presumably, they are open sourcing it in order to achieve something. If they pick a license that doesn't satisfy potential users, then they aren't going to achieve that goal.
Not having read their proposed license, I'm assuming it won't allow anyone to resell the code.
If it contained that restriction, then it wouldn't be an open source license.
And why should they?
Because if they put such a restriction in there, then only a fool would do anything with the code. Furthermore, it is also worthwhile pointing out again and again why only a fool would download, look at, and/or modify source code under non-OSI licenses. For example, you still don't seem to understand that.
That way we get to see it and potentially modify it for our own benefit.
If you don't have the right to redistribute modified code without restrictions, then the "source license" is very one-sided: you don't benefit much, but the company that gave you the source code benefits a lot. Such "source licenses" are worthless or even dangerous (the Java SCL is an example of that).
It looks like the CDDL may be a useful open source license (too bad it's on a product probably hardly anybody will want to use).
> Sun has submitted their
It's refreshing that a big company like Sun feels the need to submit their license to the "good guys" for approval.
It makes me feel like the good guys are really in control of things -- as it ought to be.
Actually looking at the license, I see that it is based on the Mozilla license (MPL), which addresses the two issues I noted. Sun's changes remove the part about being covered by a future version of the license, and remove some notice requirements and clarify a few things that are unclear or poorly stated in the original MPL.
The license may well be GPL 3 compatible, since Stallman has made noises about wanting to clear up the patent protection stuff. You'd really need to get a lawyer's opinon on that, though, after the GPL 3 has been released.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Couldn't this just be inserted into the GPL with a special supplement? It would be like GPL with plugins. :D
+5, Truth
It's interesting that Sun sees no future in Solaris because of the Linux threat. So what course of action can it take? If it does nothing then their OS/intellectual property will be assigned to the dustbin of computer history. So it has to act but is not willing to accept that by not embracing an accepted open source license (GPL or BSD) then they will never gather the required momentum to sustain a viable long term project. So by this half-assed measure - Solaris will still be relegated to the trash heap of history.
I said they wouldn't use any FOSS license already in existence, since their definition of FOSS differs with everyone else in the FOSS community, and they just confirmed it.
Sun is doomed (see link above). Sun developers, see the light, see the writing on the wall. Now is the time. Move to the juggernaut that is the GPL. Move to the juggernaut that is GNU/Linux. Unix is dead. The recent publication of the AT&T/BSD settlement confirms this. Anyone can use BSD code. And if there is anything else infringing or violating, it will be written out or corrected. Any judge will give time to make this happen, and it will happen with lightening speed thanks to the open nature of GNU/Linux. I'll be there are already skunkworks projects underway at workarounds and line-by-line identification of code has already been announced elsewhere.
Asia announces -strikethrough-Solaris-endstrikethrough- Linux migration. Argentina announces -strikethrough-Solaris-endstrikethrough- Linux migration. Australia announces -strikethrough-Solaris-endstrikethrough- Linux migration. Oracle moves everything to -strikethrough-Solaris-endstrikethrough- Linux.
It's happening now. Join the wave or perish.
Sun isn't a person. They are neither nice nor naughty. They make cold, calculating decisions based on the business environment and based on maximizing profit. That's why they have released OpenOffice and are releasing Solaris under a FOSS license, and why they are not releasing Java under a FOSS license. That's all. Don't believe marketing hype that tries to make you look at any company as a person.
They've got alot invested in Solaris, which also drives their hardware and service markets, and wouldnt want to give it all up. It seems they're just opensourcing Solaris, as in people can look at the source. Cant copy the sources elsewhere (Linux or BSD), cant resell it, cant redistribute altered binaries, and I'm not sure if anyone can redistribute altered Solaris even with the sources.
As for taking improvements to Linux, I wonder if Linux can be forked into a more restrictive License, which doesnt go against the GPL. That way Solaris source blocks can be moved to Linux if its even worth that much.
I'd be happier to see the threading implementation and memory management of Solaris in Linux or BSD, and improvements to glibc. We dont need Solaris binary compatibility as its only really useful on the sparc platforms.
Its also kinda refreshing to see they dont intend to bring down Solaris like a kamimaze, rather plan to develop it and live on it further. Means Solaris isnt dying.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Initial Developers grant You the the right to use, modify and sell ("under Patent claims infringed", whatever that means) their software.
Contributors (who modify the Initial Developer's code) grant You the same rights. This applies to the whole work with modifications, or just the modifications themselves.
You must provide the License text when you distribute Your software, including the modifications. If you distribute executable code, You must make the source code available.
All code remains under this version of the license. You (essentially) can't modify the license. Sun could revise the license, but it isn't retroactive unless specified.
You can include softare with this License in a "Larger Work" that's under a different license, as long as doing so doesn't break this license.
No Warranty, Limitation of Liability, jurisdiction, etc.
He's saying Post, Bjork's seminal 1995 album, requires critical thinking to interpret. Makes perfect sense to me.
This is a good license. In terms of what it tries to do, it seems to be on the level of the LGPL. Whether you consider that to offer you adequate protections for your code is up to you. That's why you get to decide how your code is licenced.
Of course, the big difference is that Sun's licence goes beyond a simple copyright licence (like the GPL and LGPL). Sun's license is a contract. There are pros and cons of both. A copyright license cannot offer patent licencing. Here, Sun is giving you the rights to use the software even if it infringes on some of their patents. Now, it would seem obvious that if someone opensourced software they owned that used a patent they owned that they were letting you use that patent without royalties, but that isn't the case (legally). A company could GPL-licence software that used a patent they owned and then sue users and distributers later for infringing on that patent. It would be a terrible, but legal, thing to do.
The downside to it being a contract is that contract law varies GREATLY from country to country. This is why the FSF has tried to keep the GPL/LGPL tied to copyright law only. Copyrights, while they vary between countries, don't vary as much as contracts do. This means that there could be legal complications based on geography.
Even Linus Torvalds says that the GPL isn't a perfect license. In my work, I know that it isn't since I develop web scripts which, if GPL-licenced, would allow people to build amazing capabilities into it and never share the source they used for their site. GPL-incompatible doesn't mean bad. In fact, it can be good. The Affero licence (which is the GPL plus a provision that if you use it to power your site you have to offer that code to visitors of the site - since one might make cool modifications to power a site and then never actually distribute it).
The GPL is a great licence, but it isn't perfect. Right now, the GPL 3 is being written and if it is written to include things like patent grants and such, it would be compatible with this licence. Most people, including me, had hoped that this would be a big present for the Linux community and so there is a lot of disappointment at a GPL-incompatible license. That is to be expected. It would have been great if it were GPL compatible. The amount of code-sharing that could have happened would have been amazing. Of course, the GPL 3 might make that code-sharing available (I'm unable to ever give up hope) and it's still good to have another good opensource operating system to compliment the BSDs and Linuxes.
This kind of term means that by contributing or distributing code under such a license, you may ACCIDENTALLY be giving up the right to take patent actions against persons unknown. I cannot IMAGINE this would do anything but scare people away from distributing code under such a license. I could imagine people even declining to mirror such projects on an FTP site they own, because by doing so they may be accidentally waiving the right to take patent actions against someone they aren't quite aware of.
The GPL as it stands is very clear regarding patents. If you distribute GPLed code you must allow people to use patent. There's no "accidental licensing".
but none of these licenses is compatible with GPL. Which is OK for me, I'm not a religious fanatic
The GNU General Public License has done possible the existence of Open Source. So a lot of people thikns that it's a great idea, and I don't think that they are religious fanatics. They just prefer the GPL filosofy and objectives.
I just want my software to be free (as in beer) and usable
If you want gratis software then just pirate it like a bunch of people do.
My city: Barcelona.
Good, so maybe you can shine your light on this, I quote from the draft license itself:
"4.1. New Versions.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number."
So, besides distributing patches to software, we can start distributing patches to licenses as well?
Great. Just what everyone needed.
And you're an anti-GPL zealot... Just as bad in my view.
Authors of source have the right to license their work however they like, whether it be GPL, BSD, CPL, MPL, etc. Diversity in licenses is a good thing, but that doesn't make the GPL evil.
-ragnar
Please, for the love of RMS, please please sepll check :)
I has downloaded SpellBound 0.7.1. I have done it for RMS, not for you.
My city: Barcelona.
That said I'm waiting for tolls to popping-up from their Firefox browsers to say MPL is to restrictive.
That said, where did the idea come from that just because Solaris was going to be open-sourced it needed to be incorporated into Linux?!
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
The GPL has the viral component that removes the right of authors to license their work however they like...
If you use a GPL library you can't then MPL your parts of your code.
I'm not saying the GPL is evil (I used to really like it, until I ran up against this insanity), but it could sure use some updating.
Wow. A heart-felt statement from someone that's not even remotely informed.
Section 2.2: "Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject to third party intellectual property claims, each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license"
Wow. Instead of stopping you from distributing it, they actually explicitly say you can.
Go away.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Stop spewing this crap.
Authors can license *their* work HOWEVER THEY LIKE... ALWAYS.
The GPL limits the licenses YOU can put on OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK.
You can license YOUR code under the GPL and another license at the same time. You can distribute your code and the GPL library *separately* (which means you can put them on the same CD or the same web site, but you can't link them together and distribute binaries).
And remember, ALL licenses from the BSD on up have an "inherited" component. Would you like to take that BSD library and pretend you wrote it? No, you can't , the BSD license forbids that. Oooh, viral!!! I'm bein' opressed!
There is a big difference between the BSDL and the GPL. On one hand we have the BSDL that says "license it however you want as long as you don't claim you wrote it(linux users have a problem with this since they seem to like to rip BSD code and claim they wrote it)". Then we have the GPL which requires you to keep it GPL'ed. Now um which one is viral?
If Sun are going open source then tell me why they've changed the MPL so they can include third party patented material without telling you (See the section 3 changes) and which you would have no rights to.
The MPL requires that anyone using third party patented material declares it so that you know if its contaminated and non-free as a contributed. The Sun license allows them to slip anything the like into the code then smile as a third party sues people for their contribution.
In general the changes are mundane (Software for Code etc) or in some cases quite sensible - legal jurisdiction, simplifying the definition of creator, but that one change is quite evil on first reading
I'm not claiming the GPL is evil. (Nor, in fact, am I claiming Microsoft's EULA's are evil). I am claiming that the GPL is overused, that too many GPL advocates see "Open Source" and assume GPL the complain when it's not GPL, when Open Source actually encompasses a far broader range of licenses.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
Yeah, I can write a patch to the linux kernel (or any other GPL project) and license it however I want. But for anyone to make use of my patch, they'll have to make use of GPLed code as well - what, you expect me to believe that my patch will cleanly apply to the BSD kernel?
If an author contributes code to a large GPL codebase, he is de facto required to GPL it. Sure he can release it under some other license; however, to make use of it, everyone else will have to apply it to the original GPLed code, which immediately brings it back under the GPL. The author has your so-called freedom in name only, but can never make use of that freedom; in my book, that means the author is just as restricted as the GPL.
The GPL limits the licenses YOU can put on OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK
Let me point out again: an author's work is worthless without the GPL code that the work modifies. Thus, the author must de facto release his code under the GPL - thus, the GPL is viral. I am reminded of a Henry Ford quote: "You can choose any color. As long as it's black."
The GPL is a great license ... for anyone who believes all code should be GPL. For everyone else, it's just as bad as a Microsoft EULA.
Before you respond, answer this question: What benefit would Sun get from releasing OpenSolaris under the GPL instead of this MPL-clone? Not what advantage YOU get ... I'm asking what advantage Sun gets.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
about sun. Sometimes (like OOo) it feels that they are our best friends. Other times, (like the MS+SCO thing) it feels like they are like the bad old days of IBM. I think we should wait and see though. They, like any big organization have lots of internal politics. (Look at what anders has engineered over at MS for an example). Still, I'm willing (despite a rather nasty paranoid post i made about solaris 10 here previously) to give them some time. Let's see if they really understand OSS. I sure hope so. I'm spending a lot of time trying to see if OOo works in a greek env, and getting interestingly mixed feelings so one day soon i may go live rather than hide in the OSS closet.
Hope the weather is improving in your part of the world alan, and thanx for the penguin at my old alma mater (aka Bristol). BTW: how long do those
guys live? Bet they hate the rain though...Always rains in Bristol. (This year in athens very little rain)
Cheers from
Athens Greece
Andy Allen
What Sun probably did not do, was triple license for compatibility, as Mozilla did (you can use alternative licenses of GPL or LGPL if you choose). This makes the work much less useful to outsiders who are not part of the Sun mainstream.
Admittedly this weakens the terms, but it shows much greater goodwill as opposed to code that cannot be easily incorporated in GPLed works in spite of the GPL code that keeps showing up in proximity to Solaris.
In fairness, Linux is also not triple licensed to serve Solaris, but how would you expect it to be at this point or in the future now, since Sun, coming after, defined the incompatibility.
FWIW, I always liked the MPL patent "gotcha" clause which has been mentioned in conjunction with this new license (Good work Mitchell Baker).
If not there is no reason. They can miss their last chance.
Judging by the fact he foed me; it looks like ArbitaryConstant can't take what he dishes out.
Oh well, ain't my problem...
Shouldn't that be, "In Soviet Russia, Koreans are older than YOU!" ??
I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling or just confused. I think I agree with the poster who said that you're just an anti-GPL zealot. But in case you're truly misinformed, I'll give enlightening you a stab.
How exactly is this a very important point? If you are contributing to someone else's code, you of course need to make your code available using a compatible license. For example, if I decide to contribute a patch to Mozilla or OpenSolaris, I will have to provide my work to them under a license compatible with their codebase, if I want them to be able to distribute it.
This has nothing whatever to do with the GPL. I'm not sure what your point is. If I decide to contribute a patch to say, some component of OpenBSD, I'll need to provide said patch under the BSD license. So this point trivially applies to every single license.
Ok, now we're out in "What the fuck?" land. If you write a patch for the linux kernel, you're contributing to a GPL'd project. The only people that can benefit directly from this patch are people that use Linux. Presumably, if you're hacking the Linux kernel, you yourself use Linux. I mean, if I hack software package A, and improve it in some way, only people that use software package A are going to see the fruits of my labor.
Maybe you meant something like, you write something complex, say, a cryptographic algorithm, and submit it as a patch to the linux kernel. Then, the BSD guys (who also would like to have said algorithm in their kernel) are forced to reimplement it, instead of just taking your patch and hacking it.
Now, if that is what you mean (and I can't be sure, because that's not what you said) then you're wrong, quite simply. You can license your patch to the linux kernel under a BSD license. The linux guys can still use it. And so can the BSD guys. So again, it's just a matter of you (the author) choosing the license you want to distribute your code under.
Now, copyright law covers distribution of code only, so you could even write a patch to the Linux kernel and release it under some GPL-incompatible license -- no problem! But the Linux guys wouldn't be able to incorporate your patch, because then they would be distributing it under the terms of the GPL, which is incompatible with your license. But you could still make your patch available for free at some other source; and if a user downloaded your patch, they could apply it to the Linux kernel themselves and use it, and it would be completely legal, as long as they didn't try to redistribute your patch under the terms of the GPL.
It comes down to exactly what the GP said: the GPL prevents you from relicensing other people's code arbitrarily. But for your own code, you can license it however you want, and you can do this regardless of whether your code is a full product or just a patch. You can even distribute it under a bunch of different licenses, if it suits you. It's your code, you're free to license it however the hell you want.
I for one would have welcomed a really Free Solaris. I don't see the Linux kernel superior to Solaris kernel. And if there was full compatibility of Linux and Solaris - also licence-wise - I'd have been the first to switch to Solaris as basis for all my machines. Running mostly Linux apps on it, of course (availability !). With the new Solaris file system, compartments, everything. With the same hardware compatibility that the Linux kernel has.
That's what I had called a Killer App !
Some pointed out rightly that then SUN would endanger the future of their emplyees, pension fonds.
IMHO they also endanger the same by trying to stick to their own 'Third Path' to success. This is the real death knell to their future: Not becoming part of the big wave rolling; fully tapping Open Source.
Good Night, SUN; very sorry to see you go !
In this sense, the GPL is viral. If you use any GPL code -- even a line -- in your program, you must GPL all the code in your program.
This statement isn't totally accurate. Copying a single line of code constitutes fair use, which the GPL has no authority over (since it only licenses, and doesn't restrict). Thus, you can copy a single line of code without being compelled to GPL your work. (And of course virality only applies if you distribute it.)
I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out. It hadn't occured to me, for some reason, that fair use applied to source code also -- but obviously it must.
Thanks.
How about you don't be a smacktard and READ THE MOTHERFUCKING ARTICLE AND LICENCE BEFORE YOU POST. It's not that fucking hard.
The German-language Slashdot equivalent symlink.lu4 249&mode=nested
/.
has had this for ages (two days longer), cf.
http://www.symlink.ch/article.pl?sid=04/12/02/095
On the other hand, ln-s often symlinks to
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
What I see as a vital point in distributing code with source and license allowing for changes is the ability for the users to change the code. This might seem bit obvious, but it was the nerve behind GPL (you can read about it in the book about Stallman). For me Linux or BSD are much better than Solaris, because when something does not work in Solaris I have to find a klugde to go around. If I have the same problem in Linux or BSD I can always fix the broken code. This is of course tedious task, but sometimes you have no other choice. In closed source environment you don't have such an option. In my opinion releasing Solaris with source code would really help. It would also allow for writing better software for Solaris, since there is no better way to understand the inner workings of some software feature than to see the source code. The only problem is how much code would be open sourced. I would hope for the most important parts of kernel (memory, scheduler) and network stack (fire engine). Otherwise there is really not much sense in open sourcing (at least in my opinion).
You can defy gravity... for a short time
It would be fair to point out that the FSF make this very clear in their FAQ's. They also point out that you are allowed to study the GPL's code, learn from it and implement your own version.
The accusation that GPL is viral is simply another way of saying that code under the GPL is protected from abuse.
If it were possible to take GPL code, combine it with BSD code, and release the result under a BSD licence, that resultant code including the GPL's fraction can subsiquently be taken propriatory, clearly against the wishes of the original author of the GPL's code.
As far as I can see the GPL includes the minimum additional baggage to maintain the original authers wish for his code to be kept as open source.
If there is another way of achieving that objective, other than the one adopted by the GPL, I can't see it.
The "GPL is viral" polemic seems to originate with disaffected BSD developers that have made good money deriving propriatory spin offs of BSD, and see their cash cow threatened and is now taken up by the baying masses on slashdot without understanding the lack of alternative, commensurate with achieveing the original objective.
If you have to declare any patented content, you have to know whether your content is patented. Not a good idea in general. Now, if *you yourself* have patented the content, this license doesn't require you to disclose it, but it does require to license it royalty-free, so what's the big diff?
Marc Hamilton, Director of Technology for the Global Education and Research group at Sun Microsystems, will be speaking at the Southern California Linux Expo. SCALE will be held at the Los Angeles Convention Center in Los Angeles, CA.
Well, I'd not mind if they still kept the sun4m if not the full sun4 series in the code release. Sure, they might be old machines, but not giving the code out says they're up to the same games. Drop support for something in less than one version (Sun ZX 3d framebuffer). Drop it completely if it would work well. If it's possible to have the ability to have the code and to have it workable with the sun4's there'd be not much of a problem in the whole implementation. 2.6/7/8/9 break a bit too many things - ZX purposefully broken in 7 onward, dependencies on things unable to handle 2.6 as well as no way to even get 2.6 if you wanted to get a sparc running it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.