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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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

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

Re:Where is the license?

[Raphael]

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

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

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

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

Re: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?

[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.

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).

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".

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

[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

[freemacmini]

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

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

GPL compatible?

[dubdays]

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

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?

[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.

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...

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!

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.

Hmm

[strider44]

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

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.

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:

[Hatta]

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

Cynical...

[gilesjuk]

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

a bright start for opensolaris

[R.D.Olivaw]

when the website is running linux :)

Re:a bright start for opensolaris

[amigan940]

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

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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.

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.