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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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).

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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 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