Sun Grants Access to 1,600+ Patents

Insane_zoD writes "Looks like Sun is attempting to keep up with IBM in opening up patents for FOSS-based projects. From the news release: 'By giving open source developers free access to Sun OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), the company is fostering open innovation and establishing a leadership role in the framework of a patent commons that will be recognized across the globe.'"

Comments

Almost free software

[Dancin_Santa]

So what we have here is software that is essentially free in just about any way you'd like to describe it. In general, the only thing that is different between this license and the BSD license is that you are not allowed to make a profit on the sale of any software you develop and you may not close the source.

The not closing the source is what the GPL is most interested in. Unfortunately, I think that just because the owner of the patents is not releasing them under the GPL, the GNU/FSF folks aren't going to be so willing to accept this as "True" free software.

Even though it is for all intents and purposes.

Re:Almost free software

[freemacmini]

Well since the FSF folks were here first you'd think that sun would make their license compatible. But they worked very very hard to make sure that it was not compatible.

Why? That's the question that needs to be answered. If sun actually intended this code base to be free why are they excluding the GPL on purpose? DO they actually see any harm (if so what) or is this just something MS asked for and got?

GPL compatible?

[dubdays]

I was under the understanding that the CDDL wasn't GPL compatible (or at least there were some issues...please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not looking at the license right now). If this is the case, is there really any reason to care about this development?

Very nice, thanks

[tod_miller]

Aside from the scepticism, I do not think Sun would do this, and then have a dumb license.

I think an IBMesque license would be offered. I would also say that wait, news is news because it is new.

I am sure lots of work went into OpenSolaris.org and now thier opening of patens of great.

OpenOffice was OpenOffice long before any of these opening of patent folios.

And I have been a developer for 6 years (not long granted) without worrying much about patents. (although icnreasingly so)

Chill all.

Sun may not be perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

and I really didn't like their take on linux at times, but I have to say overall I'm really impressed with this company.

Though again the license not being gpl compatible (afaik) is really a sore point, Sun is making a significant contribution to the open source movement with opensourcing solaris and putting patents in the public domain.

And also let's not forget that they in a sense gave us openoffice, a software that imho is largely responsible for making Linux a real contender for the desktop.

So to put it briefly, thank you Sun, your efforts are really appreciated though they are of course not perfect.

Re:Where is the license?

[gormanly]

RTFLicense. This code cannot be used in Linux, as any derivative works must remain licensed under Sun's CDDL, and any derivatives of GPL software must be licensed under the GPL. The 2 are fundamentally incompatible, deliberately.

As for SCO, Sun signed a license with them last year in the run up to this release, which should make any Linux developer very wary of even looking at this codebase.

SCO also hold zero patents...

Re:The important question...

[gormanly]

The answer seems to be that the license gives developers the right to make derivatives of the Open Solaris code, with permission to use these patents in the derivative works.

All changes must be given back to Sun, and if your Open Source project doesn't use their code you don't have a license to use these patents.

You're therefore not allowed to use the GPL for any project which uses the patents!

Great marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like "removing the emphasis on intellectual-property rights as an inhibitor to innovation".

Sounds like a direct attack on Microsoft

Re:Where is the license?

[Xepo]

*Copyright* has absolutely nothing to do with this. Well, maybe a little in that copyright is necessary to enforce software licenses.

Sun announced (but have not provided a legally binding contract saying so) that they would allow you to use their patents if your code is licensed under the CDDA. However, they left out from the CDDA the part about one piece of code able to be licensed under multiple different licenses. Which means that if your code is licensed under the CDDA, then it's *only* licensed under the CDDA. The GPL does not allow you to just change the license like that, plus, why should we change our license for some random company?

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

I should add that even though section 13 has been removed, that does not prevent the author of a piece of software to release his/her code under the CDDL and GPL simulateneously. Authors can release their own work under as many licenses as they want. Dual-licensing is still possible, but not mentioned explicitely in the license. This has the disadvantage that any derivative works are likely to "forget" one of the licenses, unless all contributions are explicitely dual-licensed.

I will grant Sun the benefit of the doubt and assume that their lawyers did not think that section 13 was necessary and that it could cause more problems than it solves. Only paranoid people would think that it was removed in order to make it less likely that some work would be dual-licensed with the CDDL and GPL.

Anyway, this is not very important for the current discussion because:

• The only code that has been released so far is licensed under the CDDL only (not GPL).
• The code cannot be used in a GPLed program.
• The code cannot even be linked with other modules licensed under the GPL (due to mutual incompatibilities in the licenses and GPL requirements that are not fulfilled by the CDDL).
• The patent grant applies to the CDDL, not other Open Source licenses.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[FreeUser]

I think the current IBM grant does not include the Sun license, but it does include MPL-derived licenses that are very similar in their text. IBM would probably not be able to justifiably resist a call to add the CDDL.

Well, I for one hope IBM doesn't add the CDDL until such a time as Sun adds the GPL to their license. Otherwise, IBM would be giving up the clout it might have to counterattack should Sun decide to launch a patent attack against GNU, Linux, or some other free software project that happens to outcompete their offerings.

Sun has already made grumblings supporting SCO's untenable position WRT Linux. Their support of Linux and open source has been spotty at best. Personally, I do not trust Sun as far as I can throw them, and I suspect IBM doesn't either.

More like pre-empting IBM

[bill_mcgonigle]

IBM is going to drop the J-Bomb next week, an open-sourced Java SDK, at which point a whole lot of people are going to say, "Huh? Sun who?". I've got a dollar bet that that SDK is going on the ISO track which makes a whole other group of people happy.

Sun is trying to appease the open-source 'freaks' here but they just don't know how. Some almost-at-the-top people have been singing the open source song for a couple years but a few people actually at the top at Sun don't get it and so you get half-assed crap like this. This is a cry from the mountain to tell people they get it but they so don't get it they don't realize it's worse than nothing at all.

Not getting it is a great way to put a company out of business. It's too bad - I used to be a Sun cheer-leader and shareholder but that was a different Sun.

Re:Where is the license?

[dstewart]

Also from the FAQ:

"What about dual licensing? Can I license my code under the CDDL as well as another license?

Yes, if you are the copyright owner for the code you can choose to license under multiple licenses, including the CDDL."

Eric Schrock, a developer for Sun, posits his opinions on why the GPL would not be a good fit for Sun.

"Say I post an example of a function foo() to my website. Oracle goes and uses that function in their software. They make no changes to it whatsover, and are willing to distribute that function in source code form with their product. If it was GPL, they would have to now release all of Oracle under the GPL, even though my code has not been altered. The consumer's rights are preserved - they still have the same rights to my code as before it was put into Oracle. I just don't see why they have a right to code that's not mine."

I think his argument holds weight.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

This is the second time that someone attempting to do PR for Sun in this thread has mentoned a magazine award as proof of the quality of the OpenOffice community. Although in this case it's not even a magazine, just a weblog. And like the last time, the award did not attempt to judge the quality of the community and so does not back up your assertion. And in any case you should know that magazine awards are made to get publicity for the magazine, and there's no sense reading much deep meaning into them.

Is this really all you folks can come up with?

I believe that there are lots of reviewers and testers. I believe that there are non-technical project leads who don't work for Sun. But these are not developers.

I think there is a non-Sun technical project lead who works for Red Hat, and maybe a few others who work for Sun contractors. Show me the volunteer developers. List their names and recent contributions. Explain things like the dead Mac port.

Bruce