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

Where is the license?

[passthecrackpipe]

Where is the license? All I see is a press release with vague language and much arm-waving. As I read the press release, the patents are only available for work in OpenSolaris (which as of now does not exist yet - only DTrace). Or work under the CDDL. Or both. Nowhere do I see a statement that says "use these patents with any OSI-approved licensed project, or indeed any clear statement as to right of use.

Looks like there are some strings attached.

Re:Where is the license?

[essreenim]

RTFA.

Its CDDL

We have drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 ("MPL"), called the Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL").

We submitted the CDDL to the OSI for review and approval via the license-discuss@opensource.org mailing list on 2004-Dec-01, then based on community review submitted a revised version for review on 2004-Dec-17. The license was approved by the OSI board of directors on 2005-Jan-14.

sounds good to me!. For me, this sets the future of FOSS operating systems in stone. No matter what happens with SCO's malicious patent crusade, there should be enough code here that could be borrowed and used in Linux. Especially, if the code is in any way similar to that of SCO's patented code *gasprg*

Re:Where is the license?

[geminidomino]

Depends, though. Does the CDDL allow for re-licensing? If not, how can it be used in Linux, which deems it necessary to warn me on every boot up that beep.o isn't a GPL module?

Re:Where is the license?

[davron05]

A quick google search shows that CDDL is available here.

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:Where is the license?

[essreenim]

Well, it's no GNU GPL, but it seems pretty ok to me:

I've a feeling this section is relevant for the code being used in Linux or any other OS for that matter and vice versa. Besides didn't Sun decide to make OpenSolaris capable of running Linux apps? Correct me if I'm wrong?

3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.

You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipient's rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.

Re:Where is the license?

[gormanly]

Sun are still working on binary emulation for closed-source code compiled for GNU/Linux.

The CDDL prevents use of the code in Linux or any other GPLed project.

This means those projects don't get a license to use the 1600 patents either.

It might seem to be okay if you don't care about freedom to use the code in any way you like...

Re:Where is the license?

[Halo1]

No matter what happens with SCO's malicious patent crusade

SCO is saying nothing about patents, their lawsuit is about copyright. IBM did countersue based on (software) patent infringement, but that was just to pester them back, and has in se nothing to do with the SCO allegations.

Re:Where is the license?

[essreenim]

RTFPost. The article does not say anything about the patents being licensed under the CDDL. It mumbles vaguely about OpenSolaris, CDDL, and patents. And as such, it is a press release, carrying zero weight in court. All I'm saying is that this is Sun, so it would behoove everybody to read the small print before jumping to conclusions.

I'm sorry but I think Sun must have burnt you in the past. Im reading directly from the licence itself. The licence seems fine.

As far as I can see section 3.3 makes it imcopatible with Linux (as we know it) however.

If your goals are less than ideal however, there is nothing to stop you using this code to make a relatively free (as in freedom O.S.) The sad part is that it doesn't seem. Its ironic. Is it me? The way I work this out, the license of Linux itself prevents use?

Re:Where is the license?

[barneyfoo]

Linux is an inanimate object which doesn't have the capacity to deem anything necessary.

Besides, the developers do that for your and their own benefit. If you are reporting a bug and you use proprietary drivers which they can neither examine the code of nor change, they want to know about it. Debugging the kernel with proprietary drivers installed is a nightmare.

Re:Where is the license?

[essreenim]

I think I see it now. Thanks. It would pollute the GPL code with copyright code which is not allowed wouldn't it? Then Linux would no longer be Linux.

Re:Where is the license?

[passthecrackpipe]

sorry, but you misunderstand my question. I am asking where the clear, legally binding statement is that defines which patents I can use under what conditions. IBM released this document when they Open Sourced their patents to the extent they did. That is a legally binding contract. Sun just issues a press release that gives me nothing, when push comes to shove. Show me the clear, legally binding agreement, and I'll be first in line to cheer Sun for their bold move. But until I see anything other then Scott's usual grandstanding, I'll withold judgement.

Re:Where is the license?

[oxygene2k2]

CDDL is just as "free" as GPL, just incompatible (same situation as with MPL and a whole bunch of other "accepted" free, GPL-incompatible licenses)

it's just the decision whether you prefer the details of gpl, mpl, cddl, or one of the other hundreds free licenses out there.
and yes, it effectively prevents opensolaris code to enter linux, boohoo - the same happened with gnupg being gpl (incl. all interface libraries) which made enigmail (gnupg for mozilla mail - which is MPL'd) pretty complicated

Re:Where is the license?

[eraserewind]

Well, there is no clear list of patents, but I think they are not licencing the patents for general OSS use unless you use the CDDL. You can use them in so far as they are already implemented in the CDDL licensed code, or implemented in CDDL licence code that you modify or write. Obviously you can't copy the code into a GPL program, but you also can't reimplement the patents in a piece of new GPL code. (or at least no more or less than you could before). I may be wrong of course :*)

Re:Where is the license?

[Xoro]

Yes, but remember we're talking about *patents* here, not just code. Not only can you not copy code, you can't even implement the concept on your own under another license.

Yes, it's better than not being able to implement those ideas in any form, but just barely.

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

Depends, though. Does the CDDL allow for re-licensing?

Have a look at the CDDL. In section 3.1, it says:

"Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. [...]"

In addition, section 3.4 adds:

"You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder.[...]

In other words, this license is incompatible with the GPL (probably on purpose). As a result, you cannot use any CDDL-licensed code in a GPL-licensed program and you cannot use any GPLed code in a CDDLed program. Both licenses are "viral" and they are mutually incompatible.

So you cannot use any CDDLed code in Linux.

Re:Where is the license?

[oxygene2k2]

you couldn't implement the concepts on your own before already, so that they offer the patents for CDDL-projects can only make the situation better.

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

There is one thing that I forgot to mention in my previous comment: the CDDL is derived from the Mozilla Public Licence (MPL) 1.1 but at the end of the Detailed description of changes from the MPL, you find this:

Deleted Section 13 of the MPL because it was confusing and unnecessary.

Section 13 of the MPL, titled "Multiple Licensed Code", allows the code to be licensed under the MPL or an alternative license described in Exhibit A (also deleted from the CDDL). For Mozilla, section 13 allows any derived code to be licensed under the MPL or GPL. Sun has removed this section from the CDDL. You can see it at the end of the Redline diffs between MPL1.1 and CDDL (PDF file).

So any code released under the CDDL is definitely incompatible with the GPL. There is also no way to fix that (except if Sun re-released the code under a better license) because Sun has also removed the statements that allowed the code to be used under a "future version of this License" from section 3.1 and section 6 (now 4 in the CDDL).

Re:Where is the license?

[Xepo]

You're not wrong, just concentrating on the wrong issue. It's not what they're doing (only able to use hte patents under the CDDL), it's the fact that they've not issued a *legal* statement about doing it. A press release will not hold up in a court of law. Here:

Let's say you develop software under the CDDL, intending to use one of sun's patents. You get on Sun's bad side, so they can sue you for using one of their patents, no matter if it's under the CDDL, because they *did not* release a legally binding contract about it. You'd be going on their good faith, and as we've been burnt many times in the past by company's 'good faith', you shouldn't trust them, until you do have a contract like what IBM published.

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?

[CDMA_Demo]

IMHO I don't think GNU GPL is applicable to every open source project. Sometimes it may do more harm than good. I think it should only be used for new projects which are destined to become large and self-contained. OpenSolaris has made a good choice anyway.

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:Where is the license?

[Xepo]

that's interesting. So, do you think any competent judge would find in favor of the open source developer, then?

BTW, a /.er who actually knows some law, go you. =P

Re:Where is the license?

[cmoss]

actually the remaining portion of the IBM case is mainly about contracts. The single copyright violation claim is about distributing AIX after license was rescinded.

Re:Where is the license?

[Halo1]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Re:Where is the license?

[freemacmini]

By paying 9.3 millions dollars to SCO sun has acknowledged that some code in solaris is owned by SCO.

SCO would be free to sue to any project that included code that came from solaris.

Re:Where is the license?

[dstewart]

From the FAQ:

"Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?

CDDL is file-based; that means that files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; be sure to read and recognize those."

http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html

So, it might be better to say the GPL is be incompatible with the CDDL. No fault in the design of the CDDL.

Re:Where is the license?

[freemacmini]

I am pretty sure the lawyers at sun didn't miss a thing like that. This license was carefully crafted to undermine linux (thank you sun and ms!).

The idea is to create an alternative open source platform which would take developers and users away from linux. That's why it was crafted carefully so as not allow any code to flow to flow from solaris to linux or freebsd.

Why the OSF approved this license I don't know.

Re:Where is the license?

[T-Ranger]

The extenstion to that is that Sun has a damm good reason not to just throw the Solaris source tree up on a ftp site somewhere. Remember when Netscape released their code? It diddnt so much as compile because of all the 3rd party stuff i it.

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

So, it might be better to say the GPL is be incompatible with the CDDL. No fault in the design of the CDDL.

Fair enough. However, saying that the incompatibility is not the fault of the CDDL would be a bit generous...

The CDDL is derived from the MPL 1.1 from which the explicit dual-licensing statements have been removed. These statements (section 13 of the MPL) are used by Mozilla to allow their code to be licensed under the MPL or GPL, therefore making it GPL-compatible. There is no such provision in the CDDL.

It looks very much like the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL because its authors were not interested in making it compatible. They were fully aware of the consequences of their changes in the wording of the license and the FAQ acknowledges this indirectly.

Re:Where is the license?

[ray-auch]

MPL is not compatible with GPL either. Compatibility is not necessary for dual licensing.

Sun didn't want to dual-licence, so they took that bit out, seems reasonable - their code to licence as they please. Doesn't stop anyone else from dual-licencing _their_ code.

CDDL, like MPL, is file-based therefore is actually compatible in practice with a lot more licences than GPL is.

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:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

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

Well, this is basically rehashing some well-known arguments that are often brought up in a GPL vs. BSD debate or Free Software vs. Open Source software.

In a nutshell, the GPL gives you some freedoms but only if you accept its rather strict conditions. GPL advocates claim that it is a good thing, while GPL opponents claim that it is a bad thing. The basic idea that differentiates the GPL from other licenses is that a piece of code licensed under the GPL should not be used to give an advantage to non-free software. This is why the GPLed code cannot be linked together with code that is not GPL-compatible. This is also why RMS encourages developers to release their library code under the GPL instead of LGPL, although many developers who are more "open" still release code under the LGPL (e.g., GLib and GTK+, etc.)

The analogy with Oracle having to release their whole code under the GPL is also frequently (ab)used. Nobody is forcing Oracle (or anybody else) to incorporate some pieces of GPLed code into their software. They can easily rewrite something similar on their own, if they need it. If the author of the interesting function wants to promote Free Software and does not want to give an advantage to proprietary software, then his/her wishes should be respected. This is what the GPL does.

If you take the point of view of Oracle and you want to add some functions to your proprietary code, then GPLed software is not better than other proprietary software because you cannot just take it and use it without conditions. But if you take the GPL zealot's point of view, then it makes sense that the GPLed gift comes with some strings attached.

It is just a matter of choice. The arguments from Eric Schrock could interesting if the only option for Sun had been to release the code under the GPL or the CDDL but not both. But there is also the option to dual-license and allow those who get the code to continue their development under the GPL, CDDL, or both. Then anybody, including Oracle as in his example, would have been able to pick the best combination for them. But since Sun did not give any dual-licensing permissions for their code, they are effectively preventing a larger number of free software developers from using their code. It makes sense for them, but some of the arguments brought up in the press release and other public statements are rather misleading.

Re:Where is the license?

[AJWM]

CDDL is file-based; that means that files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses,

In that context, the only sensible meaning of "combined with" is in the sense of "aggregated with" -- i.e., you can include CDDL and non-CDDL files on the same disc.

That might be useful for files in a scripting language, which aren't compiled into an executable. However, for compilable language files, you have to create a derivative work (the object file(s)), and the resulting executable file has to satisfy the licenses of all the files from which it derives.

The CDDL won't let you create derivatives with multiple licenses, therefore you cannot usefully combine (in the compilation sense) CDDL files with other-licensed files.

Re:Where is the license?

[AJWM]

There is no explicit patent license. All Sun is saying is that they won't sue you for patent infringement over any of their patents that may be embodied in the CDDL'd Solaris code that they're promising to give out Real Soon Now.

Mighty generous of them -- that's the same sort of implicit license-to-use granted to anyone who uses code that Sun provided to them. I wouldn't expect them to sue me for patent infringment over using a (legally obtained) copy of Solaris.

Reading the fine print, this promise seems to go out the window if you modify the code in any way. This is far, far different from IBM's explicit license to use their specified patents in any way you choose, so long as the implementation is open source.

Re:Where is the license?

[AJWM]

or implemented in CDDL licence code that you modify or write.

Nope. Read 2.1(b) -- the Patent license is only granted to use or sale of the Original Code, not modifications thereof or of anything else licensed under the CDDL.

They are not licensing the patents for anything except the code they themselves provide, and only then if you don't modify it.

Re:Where is the license?

[Your Anus]

The issue here is that if do take advantage of your right to release your code under multiple licenses, you are no longer allowed to disribute the code *at all* if it is covered by Sun's patents. Thus the CDDL is binding.

Re:Where is the license?

[eraserewind]

What about 2.2(b)? Doesn't that cover modifications (so long as they are contributed to Sun)?

Re:Where is the license?

[bronsinbound]

Is it just my cynical old bones, or is there a potential danger in even reading Solaris code if you want to develop Linux kernel code?! For example, once you have "signed" the agreement so that you can look at the code base, your knowledge base becomes "tainted" with ideas that occurred to you while looking at Solaris.
In telecom, I worked with Solaris and loved it. But those heady days are gone, and I am wondering if this is just another way to pull a SCOX trick on potential Linux kernel hackers.
Anyone care to comment?

Re:Where is the license?

[SnowZero]

Well, assuming they have more than 1600 patents, they could just claim the patents they are suing you for aren't in that list. In other words, without an explicit list of patents, this press release won't help anyone sued by Sun.

Re:Where is the license?

[SnowZero]

Well I won't be reading CDDL code for exactly that reason. It'll just support a claim of "Willfull infringement" on anything you write later that accidentally steps on a patent. I enjoyed using Solaris in the past, but userspace is where I spend my time, and that's where Linux has really taken off compared to Unix.

Re:Where is the license?

[PastaLover]

Yes but this does not pertain to the patent question. If they were really serious about giving FOSS projects the chance to use their patents in their code, they would give all programs licensed under an OSI-approved license a license to those patents. Notice how I'm talking about two different thinks here, copyright licenses and patent licenses. These are not one and the same like the press release seems to be stating.

Effectively, what we want is not the solaris code. We want to implement something that vaguely resembles something in solaris without getting our asses sued off. I imagine a lot of people in this thread so far are confused between the two, but they are indead very different situations.

Re:Where is the license?

[Short Circuit]

That's interesting. Release a ton of patents under an OSI-approved license...but make sure the license is incompatible with the GPL. That way, your OS product can enjoy the licenses, and your competitor's OS can't.

Cool

[gowen]

Does this mean Linux Vendors can now charge their clients a per-seat licensing fee? (which as we all know is a revolutionary invention in software licensing, owned exclusively by Sun).

Re:Cool

[ShieldW0lf]

You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Software.

Yes, it is incompatible with Linux, but why did you choose to put up this section? This section isn't incompatible. HP, Novell and IBM all offer all of the above for Linux right now.

Re:Cool

[essreenim]

why did you choose to put up this section?

..because I was replying to the below (if u bothered reading parent)

Does this mean Linux Vendors can now charge their clients a per-seat licensing fee? [slashdot.org] (which as we all know is a revolutionary invention in software licensing, owned exclusively by Sun).

So, I put up that part of the licence that states the / seat charge allowed. What the f*** is flamebait about that?

f****** mods

Re:Cool

[randallpowell]

Why not make new apps with Sun's patents? Forms can occur from Sun's move. GPL Linux and CCPL Linux both with different codes but for different uses or for different structures. It's not end of the world nor is it a stab at Linux. Forget Linux, think FOSS.

And what is the percentage?

[jmo_jon]

Very nice that they do some good but like IBM is this only an empty gesture. I admint I don't know how many patents they hold but I doubt 1600 is remotely close to that amount.

Re:And what is the percentage?

[LiquidCoooled]

Percentages don't matter.

If I was doing XYZ and I was restricted because of a patent, and the owner decided to open up the patent, then I would be happy.
It wouldn't matter whether they opened up everything else.

This is like Bill Gates yesterday giving away a shit load of money - people were moaning that its insignificant compared to his total worth.
Its still a few magnitudes larger than what you or I could achieve.

I actually think the real reason for opening up patents isn't however to help the little man, its to say "look we aren't evil, we are letting free software grow and develop, and we will try not to stand in its way".

Re:And what is the percentage?

[OohAhh]

Just checked on www.uspto.gov and it says they have 4345. Results of Search in 1976 to present db for: AN/"sun microsystems": 4345 patents.

Re:And what is the percentage?

[maxwell demon]

Well, given that they license the patents only for CDDL licensed code, the intent is IMHO crystal clear: It gives OpenSolaris on one hand the needed credibility (because what is the source code worth if you can't use it due to patents), and on the other hand gives a distinct competitive advantage to it over other OSS code (because it can use those patents, while Linux, BSD etc. can't).

Re:And what is the percentage?

[Lussarn]

Except they didn't gave it out to OSS, they gave it out to CDDL licenced projects which there currently only are some sourcecode from sub under. To the rest of the OSS world this is a non event.

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

[jmo_jon]

Even though it is for all intents and purposes.

I think the purpose of this is to make the FSF/OS folks wamr and fuzzy, and since they won't are you right.

Or do you really think that a company does good just for doing good? It's just about business (like it should be in this market model) not about doing good deeds.

Re:Almost free software

[DFJA]

I think the phrase "Almost free" describes it accurately. Sun doesn't really believe in Free, it believes in Free*, where the * denotes a footnote that means it isn't really what it appears to be.

In fact the whole of Sun's approach seems to work like this. Java is not Free (although their implementation is free, as in zero cost). Even OpenOffice has some strings attached, as all contributions to the project have to have their copyrights assigned to Sun, so they can then use them in the proprietary Star Office. There is in this case however no reason why someone can't take this under the GPL and fork it, hence not assignin g the copyrights to Sun. You could then call
this "ReallyOpenOffice" or similar (although that might infringe their trademark).

Re:Almost free software

[pnatural]

the GNU/FSF folks aren't going to be so willing to accept this as "True" free software.

The one and only reason the GNU/FSF folks will accept this license is if it meets their previously stated criteria. They have a definition, and other licenses either fit or not. It's really not complicated, nor does it need to be heated.

Re:Almost free software

[ray-auch]

FSF also requires copyrights assigned to them for contributions to their projects (or certainly used to), so this requirement certainly doesn't make a project non-free*.

*unless of course you regard free as being BSD-free and GPL as less free due to it having more restrictions...

Re:Almost free software

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the real problem with these so-called "open" patents is they unfortunately legitimize software patents. We shouldn't have to get a license to use these patents since they never should have been granted in the first place.

Re:Almost free software

[SQLz]

I think that just because the owner of the patents is not releasing them under the GPL

How do you release a patent under the GPL?

Re:Almost free software

[DFJA]

Yes, indeed. However as far as I know, the FSF doesn't have any intention of re-licensing the software under a proprietary licence, which is in stark contrast to what Sun does with OpenOffice.org.

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?

Re:Almost free software

[ckaminski]

I know that the FSF *recommended* a copyright transfer, or at least specific rights to enforce code as a legally bound interested party.

I know you can offer certain copyright rights to other parties without impinging your own rights if you want to dual license your code.

Re:Almost free software

[ray-auch]

This doesn't impact the freeness of the project though.

You still have exactly the same freedoms on the code, and your freedom to contribute is under the same restrictions.

You may feel on principle unable to contribute back to the project because of the dual licensing, but that is a restriction imposed by you, not by the project. Same applies to FSF projects if you have an objection on principle to the GPL being not free enough (and I know some BSD people do).

Copyright assignment _is_ a restriction because it is (or can be) an administrative and legal hurdle which has a time and/or monetary cost. Remember, in the FSF case at least, it involves your employer(s) too (or at least it used to).

Also, assignment is unnecessary for the OpenOffice re-licensing, there are other (much debated) reasons for assignment, which are most probably the same for the FSF and Sun. I still don't see a reason why OpenOffice is any less free than an FSF project. The same re-licensing could occur on a BSD licenced project, but that doesn't make it non-free.

Re:Almost free software

[ray-auch]

They *require* it:

"certain legal procedures are required when incorporating legally significant changes"

Quoted from gnu.org

They *may* require an employers disclaimer *as well* - that depends on your status.

Re:Almost free software

[HiThere]

Here I think you are mistaken. To me it looks like genuinely free software. I haven't seen any analysis by appropriately skilled lawyers, but that's how it looks to me.

OTOH, free and GPL compatible are two different beasts. Still, this looks like a license that is just as good as the GPL. What it doesn't do is allow compatibility with the GPL.

Personally, I believe that Sun did this in a mood of mean spirited hypocracy. And I also believe that over the long term, it may prove to be a true blessing. Soon there should be two free operating systems with substantially similar capabilites, able to run identical code. And with different licenses at their foundation. And this means that it wouldn't do an enemy (say MS) any good to attack one of them without also destroying the other. But they have separate legal foundations. (Not totally separate, but close.)

I consider a diverse eco-system to be sturdier than a mono-culture. At the application level, it should be possible for any source-level code to be compiled for either OS. (See comments yesterday[?] about Gentoo's portage system being ported to OpenSolaris.)

Also, note that this is a free OS. If someone doesn't like the actions of the current custodian, then they can create a fork.

I do hope that the license is as good as it appears to be.

Re:Almost free software

[ckaminski]

If a contributor is reluctant to sign an assignment for a large change, and is willing to sign a disclaimer instead, that is acceptable, so you should offer this alternative if it helps you reach agreement. We prefer an assignment for a larger change, so that we can enforce the GNU GPL for the new text, but a disclaimer is enough to let us use the text.</quote>

There's no saying you cannot keep copyright of your own code while also sharing it with the FSF in a legally enforceable manner.

Re:Almost free software

[ray-auch]

That part is about _text_ for _manuals_ - not code (at least as I read it). Otherwise the document would contradict itself.

Re:Almost free software

[freemacmini]

"It doesn't matter who comes first or what was created first. People have the Freedom to use any license they want. Why are you interested in forcing others to be compatible with your GPL? Do you believe in Freedom? Do you understand Freedom?"

Of course sun has the right to whatever it wants. I still want to know why they chose to exclude the GPL though.

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?

Re:GPL compatible?

[Vo0k]

Yes, it isn't GPL compatible.

Re:GPL compatible?

[geminidomino]

If this is the case, is there really any reason to care about this development?

There is more to Open Source than just GNU and Linux. Several less restrictive, more free licenses exist and plenty of projects use them.

Re:GPL compatible?

[ultraw]

Last time I checked, the Mozilla license, the BSD license, the Apache license... all not GPL compatible.

Stop fighting the GPL-is-the-best-no-it-isnt war.

As for the patents, it might indeed be in vain, but it might also encourage others to do so. The more idiotic patents are given away, the better.

Re:GPL compatible?

[JohnFluxx]

You should check again then. The current mozilla and bsd licenses are gpl compatible.

The apache license is hard to tell. The apache people think it is compatible, and the fsf think it isn't.

Re:GPL compatible?

[ookaze]

The grand-parent is right.

Most FOSS platforms are built on GNU software (so, on GPL or LGPL software). Without GNU, you do not even have an OS to build your app upon. Most graphics DE (Gnome, KDE) are GPL.

So, using Sun's patents prevents you from using a FOSS OS (Solaris is still not one to this day), or even the Linux kernel.

So this as exactly NO USE for the vast wealth of Free Software out there.
That is where you can start to see that Free Software is a lot better for everyone than Open Source. Because yes CDDL is an Open Source licence, but not compatible with Free Software.

Re:GPL compatible?

[Richard_at_work]

You got it the wrong way around, they ARE compatable with the GPL, but the GPL isnt compatable with them (IE you can take BSDLed code and use it in a GPL codebase, but you cant take GPLed code and use it in a BSDL codebase).

Re:GPL compatible?

[Wudbaer]

Without GNU, you do not even have an OS to build your app upon.

Then I guess the BSD's have finally died ? My condolences.

Re:GPL compatible?

[oxygene2k2]

from the horse's mouth: (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html)

Mozilla Public License (MPL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.

----------------------

so, MPL itself is free, but GPL-incompatible, but explicitely allows for other licenses..

btw, CDDL is based on MPL 1.1, so it might just be the same wrt "freedom" and "GPL compatibility"

Re:GPL compatible?

[geminidomino]

Without GNU, you do not even have an OS to build your app upon.

Strange, I have 4 FreeBSD servers that say you're dead wrong. Once again, GNU is NOT the end all, be all of Open Source.

Re:GPL compatible?

[Raphael]

so, MPL itself is free, but GPL-incompatible, but explicitely allows for other licenses.

Correct.

btw, CDDL is based on MPL 1.1, so it might just be the same wrt "freedom" and "GPL compatibility"

Wrong, unfortunately.

As I wrote in another comment, Sun has removed Section 13 and Exhibit A from the MPL 1.1. These were the parts that allowed the license to be GPL-compatible. So the CDDL is not GPL-compatible. In addition, that cannot be fixed easily because the CDDL 1.0 does not allow the work to be re-licensed under a future version of the same license. So even if the CDDL 1.1 would allow the author of the software to decide that it could be GPL-compatible, that would not apply automatically to anything that has been released under the CDDL 1.0.

Re:GPL compatible?

[oxygene2k2]

so it's still a free software license? ask RMS to fix the GPL then, after all, _that_ can be changed, right?

(oh, and ask linus to adopt gpl3 for his code then, as he dropped the "or later" option)

Re:GPL compatible?

[Richard Steiner]

Actually, I think you can, at least for your own use. You just can't release the end result unless that end result is also released under the GPL.

Re:GPL compatible?

[geoffspear]

That's nitpicking. In that case, conversely, any bit of source code you can legally get your hands on is GPL compatible, as you can mix it with your GPL code as long as you don't want to distribute it to anyone. Every single Linux user can put Sun's code into their own personal fork of Linux, as long as they don't share it with their friends.

If I can't use code and then release it under a BSD license, it's not compatible with my BSD license.

Re:GPL compatible?

[gnuLNX]

He is also posting on a geek website were people generally care much less about your grammer as opposed to you ideas. So why don't you quit with the spell checking and do something useful.

Free like "Write code for us and we won't pay you"

[Vo0k]

These patents can't be used in any code other than OpenSolaris.

Armsrace?

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Now this is a war I could enjoy. Sun & IBM in an armsrace on who is going to free the most patents. I hope other companies don't want to be left out and start participating...

Re:Armsrace?

[ndogg]

Perhaps, but IBM gives more freedom and leeway with their patents.

Re:Armsrace?

[AJWM]

So far IBM is winning, and Sun hasn't even entered the race. Sun hasn't freed any patents.

Sure, they'll let you use their patents in OpenSolaris, but then, Sun already lets you use their patents in Solaris. Read the fine print.

The important question...

[term8or]

Is whether the license gives developers in OS products a perpetual right to use the patent, or could sun take the rights away at some point stopping projects that rely on them from producing new releases?

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!

Re:The important question...

[AJWM]

Yes and no. The copyright part of the license gives permission to make derivatives of Open Solaris. The patent part only gives permission to use the patents in Open Solaris, or portions thereof -- not modified or derivative works.

if your Open Source project doesn't use their code you don't have a license to use these patents.

I don't think it's even that generous. I certainly wouldn't bet that way.

Anyone know if there is a list of these patents?

[SlimFastForYou]

The article didn't provide a link to a list of the patents being released. I couldn't find a list on www.OpenSolaris.org either.

This is good news, but I also wonder what Sun had been patenting. I'm sure it consists of some innovative technology patents but I wonder how many of those patents are trivial (i.e. scroll button, one click, menu system, etc). I'd like to take a look at a list of those if anyone found a link.

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:Sun may not be perfect

[SQLz]

The patents are only for use in OpenSolaris or with code published under the CDDL license, not public domain.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Decaff]

They probably won't release enough code to make a version of Solaris independent of the proprietary parts

A little research was all that is needed to show that this is untrue. All of Solaris 10 will be open sources except for a small number of device drivers.

We should still appreciate the release of OpenOffice, but the rest of their openness is nothing but product names and press releases.

And, nothing but millions of lines of open sourced Solaris and tools code... A bit more than just product names and press releases?

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Ogerman]

And, nothing but millions of lines of open sourced Solaris and tools code...

You mean: millions of lines of code that are legally useless to any other open source project and are thus effectively proprietary to OpenSolaris.

Open your eyes and look at this situation for what it is. Sun wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want open source developers to flock to OpenSolaris, help develop it, but be legally unable to take anything away from it to other projects (namely Linux). Their lawyers no doubt sat around for days trying to figure out a way to look as "open" as possible but still retain full control. No matter which way you cut it, Sun is still operating under the proprietary control mentality. They don't want the community to have any sway in directing their course. This has been plainly obvious over the years with Java, so it should be no surprise that they're pulling the same tricks with OpenSolaris.

What's the practical outcome of all this? The majority of people who actually help out on OpenSolaris will be those who currently use it. Existing Linux developers certainly aren't going to jump ship. And since Linux is where all the momentum is today, why should somebody new to the game get involved with OpenSolaris instead?

The most disgusting thing about the whole scenario is that Sun is trying to use software patents as their primary means of control. Combined with possible ramifications of the Sun-MS settlement terms, which are under tight wraps, this is simply not a company I believe we can trust.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[HiThere]

No, you can't trust them. So you look for what you can do without trust.

Personally, I'm going to wait until I've read some legal analysis of what the offer means, and until after everything has been actually released rather than just promissed before I decide how to feel about it. But for the LONG term this looks quite promissing. In less than 17 years this might be another truely free operating system. How much less depends on the ages of the patents, and on how important they are, and on how valid, if you're contemplating a court battle.

In the meantime, I'll stick to the GPL.

Yes, I expect this is mainly a PR ploy by a dying company. But it's still something that promises an immense amount of good, even in the relatively short term. For one thing, it promises to be the basis of a second free OS that is compatible at the source code level with Linux. And guaranteed separate, because their licenses are incompatible. We may be witnessing a historic even, comparable in it's way to the evolution of the sexes. (And equally, only to be understood through a long term view.)

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Decaff]

The most disgusting thing about the whole scenario is that Sun is trying to use software patents as their primary means of control. Combined with possible ramifications of the Sun-MS settlement terms, which are under tight wraps, this is simply not a company I believe we can trust.

This is plain nonsense. Sun has been a pioneer in open systems, open source and encouraging standards for decades and donating free code and products to the industry. Without them, the IT industry would be a much poorer place. Linux certainly would not be as popular.

But of course, because they are a commercial company and don't follow the pure religion of GPL, and don't understand that Linux is the only true perfect operating system for all situations, we have to distrust them.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Ogerman]

This is plain nonsense. Sun has been a pioneer in open systems, open source and encouraging standards for decades and donating free code and products to the industry. Without them, the IT industry would be a much poorer place. Linux certainly would not be as popular.

The question at hand is trust, not whether Sun has made valuable contributions to the IT industry. (which they have) Of course, as far as I am aware, OpenOffice is the only codebase contribution thus far which falls under the generally accepted definition of open source. Open Source means more than "the code is available to look at" and "you can help us improve it."

But of course, because they are a commercial company and don't follow the pure religion of GPL, and don't understand that Linux is the only true perfect operating system for all situations, we have to distrust them.

There you go again putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned any of those things as reasons why I feel Sun cannot be trusted. The core reason is this: Sun doesn't like to play along without first changing the well-accepted rules. Nearly every move they make contains some type of tactic through which to maintain more control than is comfortable. They absolutely refuse to become a true member of the community, as IBM and Novell very clearly have. The fact that Sun is playing the software patent game with OpenSolaris tells me that they still don't "get it." Meanwhile, IBM is effectively destroying their software patent portfolio to allow more room for true Open Source to flourish. The fact that Sun purposely made its OpenSolaris license incompatible with every other open source license (not just the GPL) signifies to me that they have no intention of encouraging a free exchange of ideas both into and out of their project.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Decaff]

The core reason is this: Sun doesn't like to play along without first changing the well-accepted rules.

Before Sun, there were no rules. They pioneered the use of open standards.

They absolutely refuse to become a true member of the community, as IBM and Novell very clearly have.

What community? All these organisations do what they do for commercial reasons, not part of a worthy charitable motive. Its ALL politics - by IBM, by Novell, by Sun. It's just that Sun have a very long record of really contributing, and not just making a few gestures over the past few years, as IBM and Novell. Two products alone have changed the IT industry: Open Office and Java. Both were given away FREE.

The fact that Sun purposely made its OpenSolaris license incompatible with every other open source license (not just the GPL) signifies to me that they have no intention of encouraging a free exchange of ideas both into and out of their project.

This suggests a rather lazy attitude from the 'community'. You can exchange all the ideas you like, but not the code, but so what? There have been plenty of ideas exchanged between Solaris and Linux for example: both conform to open standards, and Linux uses many APIs that were freely donated to the community by Sun. Why should Exchange of Ideas mean 'let me have all your code'? There may be good reasons for Sun's licence. OK, so I would have preferred GPL, but this attitude of 'unless Sun does things exactly our way, they are not to be trusted' is rather immature.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Ogerman]

Before Sun, there were no rules. They pioneered the use of open standards.

We're talking about Open Source, not ancient *nix history. There were many contributors toward the pioneering of what we now consider to be "open standards."

What community? All these organisations do what they do for commercial reasons, not part of a worthy charitable motive. Its ALL politics - by IBM, by Novell, by Sun.

The word "community" does not imply charity or lack of commercial motive. When I speak of the "open source community" I care not about what underlying motives members may hold. It is the outcome that matters. IBM and Novell directly compete with each other, yet they are part of the same community because they share a common goal. When you distill it down the most fundamental economics, Open Source is about mutual benefit through agreeing to share the workload.

..not just making a few gestures over the past few years, as IBM and Novell.

Considering that Linux has more future than OpenSolaris, unless Sun changes the license, which gestures are worth more? And incidentally, IBM has contributed far more true open source code than Sun.

Two products alone have changed the IT industry: Open Office and Java. Both were given away FREE.

OpenOffice was most likely given away because Sun really didn't know what to do with the mess of a codebase they acquired from Star Division. It was the last ditch effort, following in the wise footsteps of Netscape with Mozilla. However, did you know that, in the Sun-MS settlement terms made public, there is explicit exclusion of OpenOffice (but not StarOffice) from the legal protection umbrella? Regardless of the fact that MS would probably never actually attempt to sue OO users, this manuever was purposeful and agreed upon by both parties. It effectively gives both Sun and Microsoft a trump card to play should OO become "too popular." Some commitment, eh?

Java is not free and Sun has made numerous efforts to prevent it from becoming free. I'm not talking about Sun's own implementation -- who cares.. it's not that hard to write an alternative. I'm talking about the language specification itself and supposed patents Sun holds to make implementation possible. It would delight me greatly to see IBM release a fully GPL or MPL implementation of *ava and then force Sun into a patent-disarming settlement -- assuming there aren't any workarounds. Java is a wonderful language, but it will not move significantly outside of the enterprise datacenter until there is a fully Open Source implementation that is both more efficient and which can be distributed with every copy of Linux and Mozilla. Remember that .NET/C# is an increasingly capable challenger. Sun would be wise to not let MS "pull an IE" on Java.

Why should Exchange of Ideas mean 'let me have all your code'?

Well, it's optimal for all parties involved, but that's not even the point. If this were merely a matter of incompatible copyright licenses, such that cross-polination with Linux would not be possible, it would not be such a big deal. The big problem is that Sun is only granting use of their supposedly-important patents to those who use *their* copyright license. This is what I mean by trying to block the free exchange of ideas. If somebody comes up with an innovation in Linux, Sun will implement it in their own code. But if Sun comes up with something, they'll patent it to try to prevent its use in Linux. See the problem? They want to create their own little island where they still have control.

but this attitude of 'unless Sun does things exactly our way, they are not to be trusted' is rather immature.

Actually, I think it's Sun's business model of control through software patents that is immature. Most of the rest of the software industry is quite ready to ditch this hideous and unethical relic.

Re:Sun may not be perfect

[Decaff]

Java is not free and Sun has made numerous efforts to prevent it from becoming free.

I pay nothing for it. I can distribute it with any of my Java applications.

Java is a wonderful language, but it will not move significantly outside of the enterprise datacenter until there is a fully Open Source implementation that is both more efficient and which can be distributed with every copy of Linux and Mozilla.

Blinkered nonsense. Java is used widely everywhere. Just look at the number of java projects on sourceforce. It's the Linux licences that stop the distribution, not Java licenses, as proved by the fact that many Linux distributions already do redistribute Java.

Hmm

[strider44]

Wait a second, does this mean we like Sun again? I'm confused.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, I think you'll find that /. does like Solaris - at least the portion of /. that's not 14 years old.

So I guess not that big a portion after all...

Re:Hmm

[Katana2]

> Wait a second, does this mean we like Sun again? I'm confused.

What is there not to like about Sun with respect to patents? As far as I remember they have never used their patents offensivly. Defensive patents are not a bad thing.

Re:Hmm

[ThousandStars]

I realize you're aiming for funny, but I'll answer seriously because I think that there is an important point underneath the humor.

We don't like Sun, but we do share some common interests with Sun. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that we do like Sun, at least a little bit, but don't trust them. This pretend-opening of patents makes us like them even less, and is an example of why we don't trust them. The patents they offer only apply to their license, which isn't compatible with the GPL or BSD-style, and is therefore even more duplicitous than their alleged opening of Solaris code. All of Sun's recent efforts seem more like an effort to confuse and befuddle open source people. Unfortunately for them, open source people aren't so easily fooled, and thus tell Sun to take their dwimmercraft elsewhere, for the open source people are not so easily ensnared by promises of false baubles and trinkets.

We still like Sun, at least somewhat, for giving out OpenOffice.org and fighting against MS for many years. They're the sort of friend we wouldn't want to leave at home at night with our wife and wouldn't want at our back in a fight.

Re:Hmm

[strider44]

I was in a way trying to be funny, but it was a serious question. Good answer too.

Re:Hmm

[ThousandStars]

Thanks for the compliment. I think the strange thing about Sun and open source/ slashdot types is that Sun doesn't fit easily in the overall scheme of things. They've done some great things to advance open source, and their employees contribute to just about every large open source project out there. They still do a tremendous amount of work on OOo. Still, their half-assed, pretend efforts at creating an open source version of Solaris, and now this patent business, is probably worse than staying all closed-source because they're only muddying the waters. Sometimes they slam Linux, sometimes they embrace it.

For these and other reasons, I and many others feel uncertain toward Sun. There's also a great deal of confusion about what they're doing these days, which is understandable because of the mixed messages they keep sending. That may be in part because they don't seem to have a conherent strategy, and if they do it's well-hidden from my eyes.

Not as good as IBM

[borgheron]

Sun, according to thier license, reserves the right to sue if the software is released under another license. :)

IBM opened the 500 patents it opened without restriction.

GJC

Re:Not as good as IBM

[Halo1]

IBM opened the 500 patents it opened without restriction.

No, they didn't. The restriction is that their license is only valid for open source. I may be a less strict restriction than Sun's, but it still is an important one.

Re:Not as good as IBM

[Vo0k]

That, and you can't sue them for any patent infrigement (valid or not) or you lose the right to use their patents.

Re:Not as good as IBM

[BillyBlaze]

There's a subtle but important difference in implications between "the 500 patents it owned" and "500 of the many thousands of patents it owns."

Re:Not as good as IBM

[borgheron]

Indeed this is true. I should have said that it was free for the use of FLOSS. But, still a better contribution than Sun's. :)

GJC

Translation:

[Vo0k]

Take my patents freely. Sue me for violating your patents (rightfuly or not) and you can't use my patents anymore.

Re:Translation:

[oxygene2k2]

well, implicit crosslicensing - nice way to get rid of patents, or not?

Re:Translation:

[Hatta]

Problem is, in order to use one of Sun's patents, you have to give them all of your patents. Hardly fair.

Re:Translation:

[njcoder]

" Problem is, in order to use one of Sun's patents, you have to give them all of your patents. Hardly fair"

Not Quite. In order to participate with CDDL software (distributing, contributinng, whatever) you give up your right to enforce patent claims against that software (or maybe all cddl software in general?).

So lets say you're some server vendor. You decide to ship your products with opensolaris after making changes to the kernel that improves the performance on your systems. You have a patent on some type of memory management that you can see possible enforcementagainst opensolaris. You can not enforce it and abide by the terms of the cddl. In exchange, sun isn't enforcing the 1,600 operating system patents it has against you. Basically it says, anyone using this can't file patent claims. I'm sure sun has a lot more patents pertaining to solaris than other people might.

Re:Translation:

[SharpFang]

you give up your right to enforce patent claims against that software (or maybe all cddl software in general?)

6.2. If You assert a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You assert such claim is referred to as "Participant")

Translation: Sue any developer of the software (Sun or anybody from the Open Source community), about a patent.

That's it. Attack about ANY patent supposedly (be it true or not) appearing in ANY product by that person. Actually, not even software - patents of anything: devices, technology, economy, anything patentable. (too bad it doesn't work against copyright claims though).

Nice. Contribute 20 lines of code, have it included in the tree even for a week, after which some QA removes it, just enough for it to appear in CVS history and if somebody sues you about ANY patent, you can countersue about any of SUN's patents.

Cynical...

[gilesjuk]

1. Sun grants access to patents
2. People use patents
3. Sun revokes access to patents and sues people
4. Profit!!!

Yes, if this keeps up

[AthenianGadfly]

If this is true, then it certainly won't be long before Microsoft begins to release core patents to the public.

Err... perhaps not.

But just think - if they did, then someday they might even allow Linux to include the major feature Windows has that it still lacks: the patented BlueScreen(tm) technology that those OSS folks just can't seem to master.

a bright start for opensolaris

[R.D.Olivaw]

when the website is running linux :)

Re:a bright start for opensolaris

[R.D.Olivaw]

can you explain why there are two answers depending on whether you put http:// in front or not?

Re:a bright start for opensolaris

[amigan940]

Netcraft is wrong at times. nmap -O results were posted yesterday confirming that it is Solaris.

Re:a bright start for opensolaris

[foksoft]

Hmm, your scrit doesn't work on SUN Solaris. :-(

IBM

[dolo666]

They are just following IBM and yet somehow I don't think Sun is grasping the true sense of Open Source. IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

Sun's trying to grab the brass ring without really putting their best foot forward, IMHO. This is a ploy to get people using Solaris, and therefore I think it's stupid.

Re:IBM

[Doomdark]

This is a ploy to get people using Solaris, and therefore I think it's stupid.

That sure sounds insightful!

RTFL

[hweimer]

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

Of course you can, section 2.1 of the CDDL grants you a distribution license that does not exclude selling the software for profit. Everything else would be a violation of section 1 of the OSI's open source definition.

Novell is still in first place on this

[originalhack]

While it is nice to see IBM and Sun jumping on the bandwagon and it is a really cool gesture, the real benefit of a patent portfolio is when it can be used to force another company to cross-license. If IBM (or Sun) were to take the position that any company that initates a sleazy IP attack against an OSS project may find itself defending against IBM's entire patent portfolio, that would be very useful.

Perhaps, Novell would be willing to let IBM and Sun "copy" this

SUN is hiring developers

[foksoft]

SUN is hiring developers for their OS if they will work for free.
Yes, SUN wants you!

As long as there will be statement that any new release must be made avaliable under CDDL licence, the making available these patents makes no sense for Linux and any other software made available under GPL.

This Just in......

[Ogman]

The U.S. Patent Office announced today that Microsoft has applied for and been granted a patent for The Patent. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stated that the company will begin utilizing the new patent by, "snatching those 1600 patents back from the Communist Penguinistas!" Ballmer also said that the company is very pleased that this action will allow them to protect their intellectual property and, by extension, "screw Sun more than ever before." Asked if they will be charging licensing fees on every patent in the world, Ballmer laughed maniacally and launched into a rendition of the "MonkeyBoy" dance.

Re:This Just in......

[CapnGrunge]

Uh... that should be "Communist pingüinistas". Oh wait...

Re:Where is the codification in law?

[essreenim]

Yeah, I had a horrible though. What if SCO were to use this as leverage in their case. If the Linux community stay away from the Solaris code, SCO can draw a correlation between Sun'scopyrighted code and that of their own. Then they can assume the Linux community is guilty of using (questionable..) their code without copyright. If they use the code, and remove the copyright (I assume they have to in accordance with the GPL) what are the legal ramifications?

Anyway, the more I think about the CDDL, the more I think poison ivy for the Linux community.

Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

I confirmed with Sun's PR person for this release (at Byte Communications), that the patents are only for use with software under the CDDL license and the OpenSolaris process. The patents can be enforced against GPL software, including Linux. In contrast, the IBM grant was for any OSI-accepted license.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[maxwell demon]

According to the IBM legal statement, the patent license applies only for open source licenses which were listed at the OSI website "as of 01/11/2005" (which I assume means Jan 11, 2005; not November 1, 2005). Unfortunately I don't know how to check when a license was listed there. So does anyone know if the CDDL was already listed at that date? That is, may CDDL code use both IBM's and Sun's patents, or are they excluded from IBM's license through the date requirement?

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Bruce

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.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

I agree, their participation so far appears to be cynical and they seem to intend to operate as a "spoiler", fragmenting the Open Source community rather than supporting it. Otherwise, we would see them dual-licensing with CDDL and GPL, and their patents wouldn't be barred from use in Linux.

OpenOffice should be second in importance only to the Linux kernel among Open Source developers. And yet it has almost no developer community - IMO due to Sun's conduct. It's not clear that Sun has learned anything from that.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[geoffspear]

The FSF's participation in the Open Source community seems to be cynical; they intend to fragment the Open Source community rather than supporting it.

Otherwise, I'd be able to use GPL'ed code in my BSD-licensed projects.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

The FSF was there first. It's the job of those who come later to be compatible with what already exists. But you are wrong about not being able to combine GPL and BSD works. GPL software and BSD software can be integrated together. The licenses are compatible with each other and the resulting larger work will be under the GPL. CDDL and GPL work can't be integrated that way. Their terms are not compatible.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[geoffspear]

Proprietary software existed before the GPL was written. Therefore, it's FSF's job to provide code that can be used in closed source projects.

Or do your absolute statements only apply if the conclusions agree with your politics?

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

Geoff,

Don't be silly. In contrast to BSD licensing, proprietary software manufacturers had no intention of reciprocating and providing Stallman with access to their code. Their existing licenses at the time did not admit that possibility, and still do not. Stallman could not make a larger work with compatible licensing, he could only offer his work for someone else to parasitize, without any return to Stallman or the community. And I don't see any reason why he should have done that.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[T-Ranger]

Well, not quite.

The GNU project was started in reaction to licenses that closed down communities. Its goal (though it has expanded further) was a return to that community spirit. That community existed because of the lack of licenses, "good" licenses, or licenses that just were not enforced - or a bit of all of them. Licenses existed that "fulfilled the goals of government grant projects".

It is an oversimplification to say that the FSF and the GPL was first. What they did do first was to attach political rational to what was previously pragmatic (or apathetic) actions.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[ckaminski]

Look at the respective sizes of the FSF and BSD communities, and you'll see why the GPL is so successful. People know that their work isn't going to be coopted by a commercial outfit without further benefit to the community.

I'm not complaining about the CDDL; I'm disappointed in Sun, but it's their choice. As is your choice to use a BSD license. The GPL is my choice.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[geoffspear]

Thanks for the revisionist history. The sizes of the communities prove nothing. Linux surpassed BSD because there were concerns that BSD's code might be vulnerable to the sort of thing SCO's trying to do to Linux, long before SCO even existed.

The problem wasn't that people worried that corporations would steal there code; the problem was the rumors that UCB stole code from AT&T and that BSD was on shaky legal ground. By the time the Regents eliminated the issue, Linux has already caught on.

You might as well argue that Windows' market share is so big because everyone loves software activation schemes and Microsoft's EULA. In reality, a combination of luck and good business sense got Microsoft early control of the market, which snowballed because of perceived cost of switching to something else combined with the fact that a majority of software is written just for Windows, because it's got a majority of market share. It's a vicious circle, and the average user doesn't care whether Windows is really technically or politically superior to the alternatives; they just go with what's compatible with the software they own or the macchine they've got at work.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

[The GNU project's] goal was a return to that community spirit.

I agree. And I see this Sun move as less than entirely community-spirited.

It's not clear to me when the BSD license originated. When I was running Berkeley Unix in 1981, I think just before 4BSD came out, they required that you show them your ATT Unix license before they would send a tape.

The rationale behind the BSD license was that since the taxpayer had already paid for the work, he should have maximal usage of that work. In contrast, most modern Open Source work is not federally funded. I am happy to use the BSD license on my own work when someone pays me to do so. If I'm the one paying, GPL is justified.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

So you would disagee with Linux User awarding OpenOffice the award for best OpenSource program and disagree with Jon Hall for presenting them with the award.

The proper link is here. Slashcode always embeds a space if you paste in a long link without using the proper HTML.

The award was part of "Networking Industry Awards 2003", was for "best software" and did not represent that it was a judgement about the community involvement in the project. Maddog was there to get his own award. Organizations who give awards are usually in it to get publicity for themselves. Thus, don't read too much into them.

The list of OpenOffice project leads is here. Although some of the leads don't work for Sun, very few of them seem to be volunteers. The collab.net folks are Sun contractors, etc. It's difficult to judge who is behind an @openoffice.org address, and there are a lot of those.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

Thanks for the revisionist history.

Tee hee. Two can play at that game. I am a BSD user since 1981. When PC BSD came out, USL vs. BSDI wasn't the main thing holding people back. It was the fact that BSD didn't have an IDE disk driver.

MS got early control of the market because they won a sweetheart deal with IBM.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[HiThere]

Of interest to me is a slightly differing question:

*IF* they actually do release "OpenSolaris" under the CDDL, would someone else be allowed to fork it?

If not, why did the OSI approve that version of the CDDL as a free license. If so then I see an interesting future where there is ANOTHER majore free operating system. One that could eventually include most of Linux (even if not in Sun's dialect).

To me this seems important because any one license / OS is potentially vulnerable to legal attacks, but if there are multiple free OSs, then the entire community becomes less vulnerable. This hinges on the CDDL being as good a free license as the GPL. And on that I really don't have a good opinion. I know and trust the GPL, but the CDDL might be stronger against patent based attacks. Is it? What are the limitations that it imposes? Is anyone particularly favored? (The MPL, as I recall, is descended from the NPL in which Netscape had a favored position. Since I use Mozilla under the GPL, I haven't considered what the MPL might mean.)

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

I suspect that the major force in the way of a fork will be the fact that not all of the system is Open Sourced. Some critical pieces will remain proprietary. This will include some device drivers, some filesystems, and I suppose enough of the kernel core to keep the project from being useful in a fork.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[CarlDenny]

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.

I believe the IBM patent licensing is specifically voided for any entity that brings a patent suit against any project under an OSI license. So even if IBM's grant did apply to Sun's license and code, Sun wouldn't be protected from a patent counterattack if they sued a GPLed project.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

So even if IBM's grant did apply to Sun's license and code, Sun wouldn't be protected from a patent counterattack if they sued a GPLed project.

They probably have a patent cross-license, so this might be moot. Early in its history Sun had to settle a patent suit brought by IBM, for something like $21 Million, which might not sound like much for Sun now but it hurt a lot then. The settlement probably came with a cross-license.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[attobyte]

Why don't you see what license existed first. How the hell do you know.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[geoffspear]

How do I know that there was proprietary software before the GPL was written? Well, for one thing, when RMS wrote the original Emacs General Public License, in 1985, he mentioned that the reason the GPL was necessary was because other licenses, which existed before the GPL, took away your rights.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Alex]

Although some of the leads don't work for Sun, very few of them seem to be volunteers. The collab.net folks are Sun contractors, etc. It's difficult to judge who is behind an @openoffice.org address, and there are a lot of those.

Bruce - Why does it matter who is behind an @openoffice.org address ? - if it is a volunteer fair play to them - if it is a contractor - Who cares? Or do you have a problem with Sun paying people to develop open source software ?

I don't understand.

Regards,

Alex

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[attobyte]

So you are assuming that the GPL was the first free licenses. People have been trading and giving software away for free all the way back to the Altair. The Altair came out way before 1985.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

Take the comment at face value. I couldn't tell whether the person behind an openoffice.org address was a volunteer or not.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Alex]

Take the comment at face value. I couldn't tell whether the person behind an openoffice.org address was a volunteer or not.

But what difference does it make ?

Alex

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

I can't tell if the person is a volunteer or not.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Alex]

Thanks Bruce - maybe I haven't been clear enough, I don't understand what it matters if a person working on an open source project is paid or a volunteer.

Are you actually trying to suggest that the same code/communication written by a Sun staffer are somehow less worthy (and/or useful) than identical code/communcation written by a volunteer ?

If you are, I cannot believe I used to respect you.

Alex

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

If you are, I cannot believe I used to respect you.

Don't say stuff like that before you even understand what I am talking about.

My point is that Sun has not been successful in building much of an outside developer community, for what should be the second most important software program in all of Open Source software, behind only the kernel. Of the people participating, a good many are Sun contractors, etc. And it's difficult to find very many volunteers.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[softweyr]

It's not clear to me when the BSD license originated.

With the first Berkeley Software Distribution, March 9, 1978.

When I was running Berkeley Unix in 1981, I think just before 4BSD came out, they required that you show them your ATT Unix license before they would send a tape.

If you asked for the full tape that included the entire system sources, you had to have a UNIX license to get the UNIX source code parts. Some of the programs developed entirely at Berkeley, such as curses and vi, were available on tape or via Usenet with the Berkeley copyright and license without a UNIX license.

The rationale behind the BSD license was that since the taxpayer had already paid for the work, he should have maximal usage of that work.

Precisely, and thank you for noting this point. I think taxpayer funded software development, including from university research programs, should be licensed under terms like the Berkeley or MIT license rather than the GPL because (in the USA at least) corporations pay taxes and should therefore be allowed to benefit from the research they have paid for.

For software developed by individuals or teams, the license should reflect the wishes of the authors. If you wish to keep your software free, use the GPL.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

>Don't say stuff like that before you even understand what I am talking about. >My point is that Sun has not been successful in building much of an outside developer community, for what should be the second most important software program in all of Open Source software, behind only the kernel. Of the people participating, a good many are Sun contractors, etc. And it's difficult to find very many volunteers. Says who exactly. 50% of the project leads on OpenOffice.org do not work for Sun. In addition there is a very large community of reviewers and testers who don't work for Sun. Finally OpenOffice.org has won a number of awards for the quality of the SW it has produced and in addition the quality of the OpenSource program itself. Refers to a recent award not for the quality of OpenOffice but for the OpenSource project itself Care to explain what leads you to your conclusion when all the facts tend to suggest the opposite.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

My point is that Sun has not been successful in building much of an outside developer community, for what should be the second most important software program in all of Open Source software, behind only the kernel. Of the people participating, a good many are Sun contractors, etc. And it's difficult to find very many volunteers. Says who exactly. 50% of the project leads on OpenOffice.org do not work for Sun. In addition there is a very large community of reviewers and testers who don't work for Sun. Finally OpenOffice.org has won a number of awards for the quality of the SW it has produced and in addition the quality of the OpenSource program itself. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/11244/ Refers to a recent award not for the quality of OpenOffice but for the OpenSource project itself Care to explain what leads you to your conclusion when all the facts tend to suggest the opposite.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

I agree, their participation so far appears to be cynical and they seem to intend to operate as a "spoiler", fragmenting the Open Source community rather than supporting it. Otherwise, we would see them dual-licensing with CDDL and GPL, and their patents wouldn't be barred from use in Linux.

Odd the last time anyone counted more source in Red Hat had been donated by Sun under GPL or a GPL compatible licence than any other commercial company. I don't know how that squares with your claim that Sun is actively fragmenting the Open Source community but it certainly doesn't help.

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

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

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.

Hardly Sun PR more boredom on my part when yet another Linux advocate wraps themselves in the OpenSource flag and then tries to suggest that Sun having a pop at Red Hat or not fully supporting Linux represents an all out assault by Sun on OpenSource.

Although in this case it's not even a magazine, just a weblog.

LinuxUser and developer is a magazine not 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.

Odd you have sat on panels constituted to hand out the same magazine awards that you suggest are just media publicity vehicules ! Why ?

And lets just examine your claim that there are flaws in the OpenOffice program.

Firstly OpenOffice actually represents the largest single donation of code to the OpenSource community, in itself dwarfing all the donations made by IBM, HP and SGI companies held out as exemplars in comparison to Sun.

Had you forgotten that Sun bought Star Division and then released almost their entire code base.

Is it also suprising that most of the developers of OpenOffice are from Sun ? They are the people Sun aquired when the aquired Star Divsion. Or did you expect Sun to make half of them redundant in order to engender more community participation in OpenOffice (how funny).

So what have Sun done apart from sacking half their OpenOffice developers ? Well the Engineering Council does not have a majority of Sun personnel, programmers from Debian, Red Hat and Novell aka SuSE aka Ximain are also working on the project, the Ximian folks for example did the Gnome/Evolution integration.

Secondly there are large numbers of community reviewers and testers with timely response to their RFE's.

Finally OpenOffice is actually a finished product, it really does work, it isn't on a .9 release and it is highly usable. Contrast this with the sucess of Wine also attempting to provide compatibility though of a different type with MS products.

The hugely amusing thing about this discussion is that even of you take Linux itself Sun is the largest commercial contributor of code.

Forget IBM and SGI with their hardware ports and their eminently subsitutable fileystems, forget the HP Itanium port instead concentrate on the basic plumbing which Sun did boring but hugely usefull.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

Odd you have sat on panels constituted to hand out the same magazine awards that you suggest are just media publicity vehicules ! Why ?

Because I'm an insider. I am nominated to those awards panels from time to time, and being involved, of course I see that activity for what it is. We create photo ops, get links from the front page of Slashdot, and the august members of the panel and the organization writing the check share the spotlight with the meritorious winners of the award.

I don't think I've ever had to spend more than 15 minutes on an award selection. I don't see that the other panelists are putting in more time than that.

I understand that OpenOffice is a very large contribution. Indeed, it should be the second most important program we have in Open Source. It should have a community to match that importance, and that would not obsolete anyone's job at Sun.

I despair at how badly Sun has botched strategy at every point in the entire OpenOffice saga. I spent a large part of Tuesday talking with two Sun representatives. They admit the strategic botches, and unfortunately they have so much trouble getting Sun's front office to listen that they are not able to prevent similar botches going forward.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

I despair at how badly Sun has botched strategy at every point in the entire OpenOffice saga. I spent a large part of Tuesday talking with two Sun representatives. They admit the strategic botches, and unfortunately they have so much trouble getting Sun's front office to listen that they are not able to prevent similar botches going forward.

You despair but seem unwilling to explain what these botches actually are or how they manifest themselves.

Speaking as a long time user of both StarOffice pre the Sun purchase and OpenOffice now that it is OpenSource I am extremely happy with the progress that has been made. In my opinion it is by far in away the best alternative to MS office currently on the market. OpenOffice is also a dramatically better tool than the pre-opensource StarOffice.

If this is the result of a botched OpenSource program then it doesn't say much for other programs I could mention that have significantly failed to deliver the same levels of benefits to the OpenSource community as OpenOffice has.

I really don't care who develops the code providing it is OpenSource, in the same way that I really don't care who develops my Kernel. If Solaris 10 x86 ends up being buildable from OpenSource which I fully expect it to be then I will consider it on equal footing with Linux.

I am fully aware that many Linux advocates consider Solaris particularly OpenSource Solaris to be a significant threat to Linux and they should do Solaris 10 is impressive. However none of this threat translates into any increase in threat to OpenSource itself and to claim it does is simply an attempt by the pro Linux lobby to wrap themselves in the OpenSource flag.

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[Bruce Perens]

You despair but seem unwilling to explain what these botches actually are or how they manifest themselves.

No, I've explained this in pieces on Slashdot and elsewhere. I should put them all together and publish that.

Bruce

Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux

[htd2]

No, I've explained this in pieces on Slashdot and elsewhere. I should put them all together and publish that

That would seem to be the only sensible option.

Reasoned argument is easier to appreciate if it is assembled in one place rather than scattered randomly about.

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

The Communist Penguinistas don't have them

[emailpete]

These patents can't be used in any code other than OpenSolaris. Remember that Sun and Microsoft funded SCO.

Re:The Communist Penguinistas don't have them

[Ogman]

Missed the satire, eh?

Re:The Communist Penguinistas don't have them

[njcoder]

"Remember that Sun and Microsoft funded SCO."

So did every other company that needed to license svr4. What's your point? Scott McNeally mentioned in an interview that they couldn't say it at the time, but the money was being paid so they could be able to open source solaris.

Also, lets not forget that Novell but SCO in the position it is. Novel is even the reason that Caldera was set up in the first place. It's original purpose was to sue microsoft regarding drdos.

Learn more, post less.

RTFF or "Just the FAQs ma'am"

[Aumaden]

FAQ that is, as in the Open Solaris Licensing FAQ.

They both act in their own interest, not ours

[Anders Andersson]

IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

The number of patents opened up doesn't mean a lot, nor does the true intentions of either company. The fact that the existance of software patents as such stifle innovation is a more pressing problem. What the FOSS community needs is freedom from patent restrictions imposed by law, not generous license grants to use patents currently held by these companies. Every software developer still risks violating some other patent than those explicitely made available.

IBM's (or Sun's) generosity towards open source developers is good PR, but it also helps preserving a flawed patent regime by taking away your best arguments against it. If a major movie studio were to declare that it will no longer take legal action against those who download movies over the Internet, would you consider that "a good start" towards amending the DMCA?

If I had the money, I'd try to patent the most obvious and common programming techniques possible, and then prohibit everybody from using those, until the law had to be changed. Saying "I, the inventor of the wheel as well as the alphabet, hereby grant you an irrevocable, transferrable, royalty-free license to make wheels and write books" will lead us nowhere.

I couldn't help but think....

[Majesticsock]

To quote Bill Hicks, "Yes, you are free! Free do to as we tell you!"

Are patents harmful?

[haeger]

Every now and then there is a story here on slashdot on how evil patents are and why they should be abolished. But are they really that harmful and bad?
Can someone point out any real damages done by patents, especially software patents. Are there any evidence of companies going out of buissness because of patenting issues?
I'd like to know.

.haeger

Re:Are patents harmful?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about several million dead africans due to drug company patents? http://www.avert.org/drugtreatment.htm

A good thing?

[ps6000]

Maybe this is a good thing. The public only hears the headline. All the public will hear is "another company opens its source."

Now for SCO!

[ninji]

Now if only SCO would follow suite!

more trickery from Sun PR

[jeif1k]

Read carefully: Sun isn't opening their patent portfolio to all FOSS projects, only to their own pet FOSS projects. It looks like, for example, Linux does not fall under that grant and Sun can claim patent infringement by Linux at any time.

Altogether, this is another underhanded attempt by Sun to drum up support for their failing kernel and OS efforts and represents, if anything, a threat to Linux.

Don't trust Sun: these guys are desparate and hence dangerous. If they release stuff under an approved OSI license, you can use it (eg OOo). Anything else from Sun is a Trojan horse and a ticking time bomb (eg Java), both for FOSS and for commercial customers.

Re:more trickery from Sun PR

[LuSiDe]

What a bunch of typical Groklawish paranoia. Although i admit IBM's patent contribution is significantly different (for all OSI-compatible licenses) from Sun's patent contribution which only counts for the CDDL license there are a few elements also waiting to be notified:
* Sun is significantly smaller than IBM and also owns significantly less patents than IBM;
* Sun released 1600 patents; IBM 500 patents;
* It leaves research necessary for wether
** Any -if any, which- of Sun's or IBM's patents are actually valid (precedents? lawyers who looked into it?).
** Which patents matter more. A patent is only a patent when regarded as a number. Patents differ; their importance differ as well.

Hence i find 'IBM made a better gift' a bit of a close call because of vague elements which are unclear, or elements which are compared which aren't easily comparable. The only element i agree with is that 'any OSI-compatible' license is better than 'CDDL-only'.

I have another conspiracy. It says: "The Linux community can't stand competition from another community; e.g. the OpenSolaris community." That together with old arguments between Sun and the FOSS community are the reasons for all these flames and paranoia, methinks.

However what i see Sun seems to be doing here is building an open source community which is not exactly compatible with the GPL at _its_core_ (CDDL). Remember, there's actually only 1 open source community; you're either an open source developer, or you're not. Depending on e.g. libraries, but not on e.g. kernel: GPL applications can run fine on OpenSolaris; CDDL applications can run fine on Linux.

Re:more trickery from Sun PR

[htd2]

IBM's gift is clearly better; even if IBM's patents weren't worth anything, at least they do no harm to FOSS.

Since it is now apparent that the 500 IBM patents you refer to were due to expire and that some of them don't even relate to software your point is highly questionable. Imagine developing code under GPL using IP derived from one of the "gifted" patents only to discover that you arn't in fact protected at all.

Yup, Sun is trying to pull another fast one, like they did with Java. Fortunately, this time, we're smarter (and Java is on its way out, too).

I have always "admired" the OpenSource communitys propensity to savage the people who in reality are providing them with the greatest assistance.

You may not like the Java licence but it is available on Linux, its developing and its also the mainstay of commercial Linux deployments. Does the Linux version lag Solaris or Windows and lack functionality ?? Is Sun the only company making money out of Java ??

And the sad reality which is unfolding is that it isn't Sun who has pulled a fast one but IBM unless you think that releasing a patent for a screw closure under the banner of a SW patent release is straight dealing.

How about barraging IBM with requests to OpenSource AIX or their crown jewels DB2 ???

All you have demonstrated in this post is the usual OpenSource concentration on style over substance. Sun is actually the largest single commercial donator of code under GPL let alone their other licenses. Sun however also has perfectly justified pops at Red Hat which earns them bad style points with some OpenSource advocates

No

[ultrabot]

Wait a second, does this mean we like Sun again? I'm confused.

No, as stated elsewhere releasing the patents doesn't apply to Linux at all. So essentially their patent grants are worthless.

I was just about to "forgive" Sun (regarding their SCO shenanigans). Not that Sun would care about me or my forgivings, but the idea was to essentially polish their image in the eyes of the community...

I don't know how "Open Source" this really is in the end, because it's covered by patents and they essentially prevent the use outside OpenSolaris. So relicensing *BSD under the CDDL (which you are allowed to do) and integrating some Solaris code makes you liable to be sued. Suck.

Re:No

[Znork]

Sun always prefers seeming open, rather than actually being open. Open is a marketing buzzword to be used and confused as much as possible.

They're like that salesman uncle with all the stories, likeable, but you just can trust them further than you can throw an E10K.

Re:No

[zemoo]

1. What did Sun do with SCO? Any dealings they had were done with the intent of releasing OpenSolaris! This is the fruit of those dealings!

2. This is Open Source. This is the same freaking license as Firefox (CDDL ~= MPL), and we all love Firefox. The patents are granted as long as your code is under the CDDL. RTFF.

A Summary in a Nutshell

[BlackHawk-666]

With eroding marketshare and hard competition from Linux Sun have formulated a decent plan to hold their position. They are transitioning from a product company to a services based one. You get the OS for free now, and they make their money further up the stack. All very clever if you ask me. Check out Novell for a company with a similar fight-back plan.

The other part to this is that you will be able to develop open source apps for Solaris and even variants of Solaris e.g. cut down version for portable devices, etc. I guess they are hoping to tap into the market of keen and talented programmers out there and enjoy some of the benefits that Linux has now.

You can dual licence new software that shares a common codebase. Others can take the Solaris version and enhance, or the Linux version and enhance that, and this can be done in lock-step. When the codebase is finally released everyone has the choice of migrating to SunOS or dual booting it, and checking out the benefits of this OS over others.

Yes, the licence is designed to foster open source development on Solaris, but Sun have to reap some reward from this too. It's equivalent trade (Full Metal Alchemist).

Re:Where is the codification in law?

[freemacmini]

I agree with you that this is a poison pill for the linux community.

However in a way they hurt their case with IBM. They sold IP to sun for 9.3 million dollars and now it's all open source. How can they claim 5 billion dollars in damages?

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:More like pre-empting IBM

[htd2]

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.

Well instead of Sun who, how about IBM what. Which I guess boils down to the current strange propensity of the OpenSource commnunity to look very hard at a Sun gift horse but let the IBM gift horse prance by without any scrutiny at all.

I say this because it now turns out that the 500 patents IBM have "donated" to the OpenSource community are all due to expire and some of them aint even for software. One refers to a screw closure while another refers to a medical early warning system.

Still they are all compatible with GPL so why let small details like their usefullness get in the way of a perfectly fine Sun bashing session.

This would be hugely funny if it wasn't for the fact that its yet another example of the OpenSource community savaging their friends while cosying up to the people who have absolutely no interest in their survival.

BSD too

[Xtifr]

First of all, the FSF is quite happy to acknowledge the freeness of free-but-GPL-incompatible licenses. They recommend against using such licenses for obvious reasons - they're still trying to build a fully GPL system, and their recommendations really only apply to people working on GNU. But they have no problem recognizing the freeness of, say, the Apache license or the MPL.

Second of all, the BSD folks are going to be just as locked-out as the GNU folks. Maybe even more so. This new license of Sun's is not compatible with ANY other licenses. Not with the BSD license, not with the X/MIT license, not with the Apache license, not with the Mozilla license, not with the SSLeay license, not with ANYTHING but the wonky new Sun license, which isn't used on any meaningful real-world software as of yet.

BSD compatible?

[Xtifr]

The BSDs can't use these patents either. The license terms for these patents are not compatible with the license for the BSD kernel and userspace. Not to mention the compiler used to build the BSD kernel and userspace, which, last I checked, was GPL'd. :)

Of course, the BSD folks can easily relicense their core, and could, if they wanted, relicense under Sun's license. But I think if you go propose that on the BSD mailing lists, you'll find that the core BSD folks are, in their own way, every bit as fanatical (or sensible, depending on how you look at it) as the FSF folks.

This supposed donation of Sun's benefits basically nobody.

Re:BSD compatible?

[geminidomino]

You can easily build the app FOR BSD and Linux. It might not be usable by the OSes themselves, but nothing stops you from licensing 3rd party apps whatever you want.

The GPL is better for patents on a practical level

[jbn-o]

You can use GPL-covered code in your new BSD-licensed projects by relicensing the derivative work under the GNU GPL. Or you can merge the two programs together, creating a GPL derivative (the new BSD license is GPL-compatible). Or you could run the GPL-covered program, see what it does, and reimplement the program entirely (we're dealing with copyrighted works here, not patent exclusions which prohibit leveraging the idea).

But speaking of patents, which this thread is, there are good reasons why you would want to switch to the GPL: the GPL is the most popular free software license, the GPL will grant you access to more patents than the new BSD license, and the GPL has patent language whereas the new BSD does not. Raph Levien has granted "a fully paid up, nonexclusive, royalty free license to practice the patents" he lists on his patent page. That means you get access to the 500 IBM patents (a patent pledge with huge strings attached that might not make it worth your while to use this access) plus Levien's patents (which are granted on far more reasonable grounds). Also, the GPL has some language concerning patent licensing, the new BSD has none. The next GPL (GPL v3) is said to have more language concerning patents. I know of no change planned for the new BSD license's language.

Re:The GPL is better for patents on a practical le

[geoffspear]

From what I can tell, Mr. Levien is granting the use of one patent, "Method and apparatus for suppressing moire patterns". All of the rest of the patents he's so generously allowing me to use are expired, and I can use them as much as I want without his permission.

Open source doesn't say users should have freedom.

[jbn-o]

[S]omehow I don't think Sun is grasping the true sense of Open Source.

But this isn't surprising, right? From "Why ''Free Software'' is better than ''Open Source''": (emphasis mine)

At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term ``free software'' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake--not just for the convenience they bring--please join us in using the term ``free software''.

I find this situation comparable because in both cases the work is being done under the title of "open source", not "free software" (perhaps businesses understand that the open source movement is more amenable to their goals and the free software movement exists to pursue freedom for computer users), and because in both cases the work is being done to benefit the organization that sets out the deal, not the users of the programs. Sun wouldn't grant permission to deal in their patented ideas because they want to help computer users. They're doing it to motivate more people to license their programs under the applicable Sun license, just as this executive was out to make the program "open source" for people in the organization, not the users.

Wannabees

[wardk]

Nothing to see here methinks. Sun saw IBM's good press and is trying to steal some for themselves with a half-hearted sorta-open source scheme.

they're just trying to keep the power going to the life support equipment.

FACT: Hasn't studied the patents.

[LuSiDe]

Wow, despite writing a long self-righteous post attacking the Linux and Groklaw communities, you still failed to address the central fact that is this release of patents only covers Sun CDDL software while the IBM release covers ALL open source software. In case you missed it, not all open source software is "Linux", a hell of a lot of it is Apache, JBOSS, MySQL, etc.

For one, i only 'attacked' the Groklaw community who are nothing less than a bunch of IBM zealots nowadays.

Second, i mentioned the fact IBM's release covers 'all OSI-compatible licenses'. I even noticed it as important. However, thats not where the compare ends by any means.

If I had to choose the better "gift" between 1600 patents that I cannot use or 500 patents that I can use. I would choose the 500 patents.

Have you discussed the patents with your lawyer? Do you know the patents are valid? Do you know wether there's prior art? Are the patents tested in court? What do the patents cover? Will you please publish your findings?

AC obviously has the credibility to know the answers of the above questions to the 2100+ patents in question...

Like Microsoft, Sun has a brilliant marketing department that knows exactly how to make a splash without backing it up with substance.

IBM, as charity, does't have a marketing dept. *rolleyes*.

And all the pro-anything-by-Sun whining in the world on your part won't change it.

Learn to read. I never said Sun's contribution was worth more than IBM's. I challenge the unquestioned believe that IBM's contribution is worth more than Sun's without looking into both contributions.

Re:FACT: Hasn't studied the patents.

[LuSiDe]

Thank you, very `informative'.
Now go back to Groklaw.

Re:Jeff? Are you there?

[symbolic]

Now that IBM and SUN have released patents under various conditions, I think it's high time that Amazon redeem itself. Ditch that stupid "one-click" patent and admit how retarded it was to pursue it in the first place. I still have yet to purchase a single thing from Amazon- and the best part about it is that it simply hasn't mattered.

Re:The GPL is better for patents on a practical le

[jbn-o]

I stand partially corrected. I will admit to partial correction here, and I'll thank you for the correction. However, the bulk of my points remain valid.

One more patent is one more than IBM is promising to not sue over. Further, Levien's patent is being offered on far more amenable terms than any of IBM's 500 patents listed in their patent promise--one doesn't have to forgo enforcing one's rights under law to use Levien's patent. Finally, even though GPL v2 contains too little language on software patents, the new BSD license contains absolutely none, so it's possible for the GPL to be interpreted in a way that would favor protecting one's ability to share and modify software.