Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Patent and Licensing Practices Examined
RMX writes "Groklaw has an excellent analysis of some Patent Questions About the CDDL. For /.ers who don't like reading a lot, the most important point is that 'it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.'
The article also notes that 'The short answer why [some particular clause] is needed in the CDDL and not the GPL is that Linus Torvalds has not just entered into a cross-licensing arrangement with Microsoft, the relevant details of which are not public'. Makes you wonder what those relevant details are?" And reader rudy_wayne writes "David Berlind's column Will Sun's 1600 patents suck the life out of Linux? talks about Sun's open sourcing of Solaris 10 and the problems that occur due to the fact that so many open source licenses are incompatible with each other. One of his most important points is 'when a large company -- IBM, Sun, or anyone else-- donates code to the open source community with a one-off license, like the Eclipse Public License (IBM) or the CDDL (Sun) it gives those companies a way to donate their code to the open source community, which in turn can enhance it to the benefactor's advantage, without that code leaking into a competitor's product (with a non-reciprocating license) in such a way that it can be used against the benefactor.'"
That's a lot of text. Paragraphs are our friends.
M¥ro$o£t have been using these practices for years.. so what's the big news?
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
How am I supposed to RTFA when the summary alone fills my entire browser window!
Who wants to translate that summary into english for us ANALs?
Off to RTFA will probably less luck.
This is a bug in the draft licence which sun is actively working on. It won't be a problem in the final version. For some reason the summary forgot to mention that...
Next time on Slashdot, Microsoft Sues Over CDDL Infrigements!---From the "the-sun-don't-shine-in-the-slammer-dept."
Of course corps are going to use licenses as weapons. They've been doing it for-fucking-ever, why would they stop in open source? Open source companies (like mine) compete hard. Companies that do have legal advantages and the resources to use them, will.
The cool thing is that we've shifted the landscape, and now these battles are about "how open are you" questions.
This isn't to say that everyone should fawn on closed source companies opening, on the contrary- ride them hard! But recognize where we are - one battle down, two or three to go.
What would RMS do?
Buisnesses and individuals that choose the BSDL should be given the most respect, because the code can be re-liscenced in GPL, CDDL, closed source, etc liscenced. I wonder if one could disign a liscence that is basically the BSDL except it has a provision to ban redistribution in a particular competitor's product. Would that be considdered illegally anti-competative?
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
>One of his most important points is 'when a large company -- IBM, Sun, or anyone else-- donates code to the open source community with a one-off license, like the Eclipse Public License (IBM) or the CDDL (Sun) it gives those companies a way to donate their code to the open source community, which in turn can enhance it to the benefactor's advantage, without that code leaking into a competitor's product (with a non-reciprocating license) in such a way that it can be used against the benefactor.
While lots of people won't like hearing any type of agreement with Microsoft, good open source products *are* the competition, or at least have the potential to be. So saying "without that code leaking into a competitor's product" seems a tad off if oss is the competition.
This licensing/contract cr*p has become has gone too far.
They won't be able to penetrate the benefactor's citadel!
Facts:
+ Solaris is a technically superior Unix kernel to Linux and always has been
+ Linux took off mainly because of shitty x86 platform support and pricing from Sun and other UNIX vendors
Everyone in the Linux community knows it, but it's been true for so long that nobody is prepared for a cheap x86-friendly, open source Solaris. Their deep-down fear is that Sun will gain community and developer support and be a credible competitor for Linux.
However, this group is unwilling or incapable of admitting this, so instead you get a bunch of reactionary license nipickery and people crying because Sun hurt their feelings in a blogpost.
The truth is that this ideology about "freedom" and "open source" is mostly just thin cover for rampant OS Fanboyism. Sun can "get it" all they want, but the Linux Zealots will always find fault, because they've tied what little self-worth they have into the OS that runs their webserver.
I agree. Solaris is a very much more polished than Linux is. There's plenty of documentation for it. A real, real LVM, and Veritas is always an option. No longer do you have to run Solaris on Sun hardware. Get yourself an x86, and fire it up. As the parent said, OSS developers should dump Linux for Solaris.
There's pissing contests all over. OSS is just another one.
I always wondered why PJ gave a fuck about Sun. Not to be insulting, but her experience with computers seems to be primarily related to running a word processor. Why should she give a crap what Wall Street uses to run transactions through?
nt
Maybe Microsoft has a hand in this. This could be part of a anti-Linux strategy. (Is Bill Gates in bed with Sun's management team?) First they let Sun open-license everything. (Bill does whatever Sun management wants.) In a few years, Microsoft may decide that it's had enough of this cross-licensing crap and say tell Sun to block everything. (Probably by blackmailing Sun management with incriminating photos).
Just a guess. Everything sounds tgtbt.
Where is the ironic tag when you need it.
Maybe you should merely be vigilant; I don't think vigilante action is called for at this point.
That's how blogs work. Just like if someone came into your living room and started cursing you out and breaking the furniture, you'd kick them out too. People love to rant about free speech when it's not their home they're trashing.
Just yesterday, I was thinking about what Sun has in mind with this OpenSolaris thing and CDDL.
I remembered the Microsoft/Sun settlement deal, and the stream of Sun's conflicting messages on open source, Java, ...etc.
I am not a tinfoil guy at all, but could not help thinking about Microsoft 's deal influencing/directing/shaping Sun's decision to have its own sub-world of Open Source that would not allow innovations outside this sub-universe.
Bruce Perens has confirmed with Sun that this is the case.
Now, the question is, did Microsoft influence it/order it? I hope it is not the case. Why Sun? Why?
Sun is an example of a fall from grace: from being the darling of the open source community (Java, ...etc.) to sleeping with the enemy. IBM is the contrary, it has redeemed itself from being a monopolistic, arrogant behemoth to a major player in open source now.
P.S. I am under no illusion of simplistic "IBM is bad" and "Sun/Redhat are bad". These assessments change and morph over time, and companies, like people, and nations have their ups and downs.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Now what does he mean by Open? Open as in only open to those with Microsoft IP sharing agreements? Gee, thanks for the amusement in linguistic games, Jonathan, but we really don't need you re-defining english for you to trick your customers.
That's right. This guy placed himself voluntarily on the same side of the spam wars as the spammers who committed massive DoS attacks against major DNSBLs, leading to the loss of some of the most useful ones. On the same side as the other spammers who sued Spamhaus, one of the single most effective anti-spam resources in the world, in an effort to intimidate its operators into silence.
No, I'm not misquoting him. He didn't say "make DNSBLs obsolete" or "stop spammers with other tools so effective, that nobody needs or wants to use DNSBLs". He said to get them shut down.
The guy had one bad run-in with a DNSBL operator after users reported his commercial, ad-sponsored email "newsletter" was being sent out as spam to people who never wanted it. So he decides that all DNSBLs need to be censored, and stands up in front of a bunch of guys at MIT and makes fun of the DNSBL operator for acting like a nerd on Usenet. Oh, that went over well. Utter shocked silence: "Who is this bozo, and who told him he knew anything about stopping spam?"
After the conference, I looked up his column. Nothing else he had to say was any more worth listening to. This guy does not actually know one thing about anything technical, or about the social implications of the things he discusses or his own moronic proposals.
Mod parent up. Though the "I knew it" subject line was somewhat arrogant, the links (especially the Bruce Perens link) are very important to this thread.
For all his rough edges, the simple truth is RMS is right about the GPL and technology. Freedom matters, and it is an end in itself unlike technology and wealth which are a means.
perhaps if the two ancestor posts took each other's advice, the next generation would be so confused about their identity they'd all get along.
it's only right someone provides a place where anyone can rant against Groklaw.
Try ip-wars. It's hilarious.
The summary demonstrates just how complex and extremely difficult the whole IP issue is to comprehend. This demonstrated complexity is another reason why temporary granting of monopolies through the use of IP laws should be limited to ten years. When the legal arguments begin to take the form such that one person alone cannot possibly comprehend what is going on, how is a judge going to be able to make an honest and correct decision. What is going to happen when the complexity of these laws is so great that even a team of judges can not make an informed and honest decision.
Does it go on forever?
Cute msft troll :)
One of the logical/philosophical flaws in the BSDL is that it fails to see copyrights (the restriction of copying) as inherently anti freedom. Maybe it's because so many people consider copyrights the norm or like a property right, but the very nature of restricting what people can copy is still andi freedom.
A similar doctorine, logic wise - not humanity wise, woud be "you have the freedom to own slaves, or not to" - obviously this does not do anything to promote freedoms wether it's the norm, a property, or whatnot. Even though the BSDL is certainly better than the MS-EULA.
You miss the whole point of free software. It's not just about features. It's about freedom, and that makes linux far, far superior to solaris for most applications.
Think real hard now: why the hell hasn't SCO nor Microsoft criticized this? Why isn't this a cancer on society, a pac-man of intellectual property? Somehow, perhaps, the cabal sees opportunity here.
--
Chris
It is immature for GPL advocates to get all up-in-arms about the CDDL. Be happy that their is yet another big OSS project in the mix, rather than bitch about "wah, we can't cherry pick Sun's technology for ourselves." OpenSolaris, Linux, *BSD, etc. will all exist in parallel quite naturally. They compete only as brothers, with the common foe being Microsoft.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php
Since everyone's up for getting all pissed about the potential abuse of licensing... I'm sure that some of the Sun code which will be opened has some relation to SCO.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
So GPL is a license for Free/Open Source Software, and CDDL/Eclipse are licenses for submarines.
--
make install -not war
To be honest, I came from the opposite side of the spectrum where I begged upper managment to listen to me when I told them that a few of these cheap linux x86 servers can do more than that big expensive sun server. Of course, I often just got the blow off while they went out and wined and dined with their Sun rep.
Well, a few years later, the dot.com crashed - and they decided that it was better to try Linux than to be gung ho on Sun till the point of bankruptcy. Well guess what. Those cheap linux boxes could do more than those Sun servers that cost 10 times as much. And even more, they turned out to be just as reliable and supportable without a platinum sun contract. (have you ever priced one of those).
Too bad Sun was so jealous of MS that they couldn't accept the Linux thing until it was too late. In fact, it still seems they can't accept it - it seems like they feel it's better to be in a Sun+Microsoft only world than a Linux world too.
Basically they've quite deliberately (under the pretence of removing an overly "burdensome" section of the license) inserted a loophole that they can exploit. Developers working under the CDDL just have to trust that Sun are "good" and working under their best interests.
I'm not sure I trust Sun the way they hope that the community trusts them. Even though IBM's 500 patent donation (just looking at quantity, not quality) is smaller, I think it's more significant to the open source movement. Only when Sun legally bind themselves for our trust like IBM has will I start trusting them.
The EPL doesn't stop IBM's donation of the original Eclipse source from "leaking" into competitor's products. In fact, the EPL has enabled many vendors to build products which directly compete against IBM's offerings. It is also important to note that in the case of Eclipse there is an independent non-profit organization which develops the code -- hence the E in EPL.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
It's about freedom, and that makes linux far, far superior to solaris for most applications.
How is Linux more free than OpenSolaris? You cannot argue that it is; you can argue only that Linux came first in the OSI sense. This ordering is irrelevant, and it is undenyable that both Linux and OpenSolaris are free systems.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
to think that Sun, or any of these companies, are giving up their competitive advantage and donating their IP. That would be a formula for destuction in the business market, which is not based on everyone patting themselves on the back and donating code. It's about competition and undercutting the competition with an edge.
Otherwise, why would they be trying to muscle into the Linux space. However speaking of jealousy, how about a nice look at the history Scott McNealy and Bill gates.
Freedom? Features?
Have you even used Solaris before?
I can run almost in "open-source" app in Solaris. Check out blastwave.org.
As for SCO and Microsoft, I don't care about either of them. You're turning the "Linux vs. Microsoft vs. SCO" argument into an argument where somehow you are inferring that Sun creates technically insuperior products.
As I've said,
freedom, open source != technical superiority.
Get off the pot.
When will you Linux zealots realize that just because Windows is a terrible propiertary OS, does not mean that every propiertary UNIX is a terrible. In fact, Solaris is now open-source. Get over it.
Total Bullshit. This is just a cheap move (actually a billion dollar move) to dilute GNU/linux paid for by Microsoft. Your part of the problem, not the solution. We must keep the code open and we must keep it out of Microsofts hands.
Say no to CDDL'ed Solaris, Say no to Microsoft. GNU/Linux is the peoples code.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Especially if one compares the Solaris system to the GNU system, technically superior might not be as good as flexible and usefull. I admit that I am a command line commando and I like lots of command line switches and options. In my experience, the GNU operating system utilities are the best to be had. Perhaps they don't run fully optimized, but doing exactly what you need at any speed is better than not doing what you need at high performance levels.
Sun's obvious plan here is to use the Solaris Unix kernel and bolster Solaris with more feature-rich GNU-derived utilities. Their open source initiative is their "right" to justly use and incorporate the bulk of GNU into the arms of their Solaris operating system.
It's a good idea for them, and they are acting on it while the iron is hot. Solaris can benefit from all the great GNU software as first-class packages rather than /usr/local slipshod type upgrades.
I would presume that the Solaris UNIX kernel is indeed technically superior to the Linux kernel when running on Sun hardware, but I think that I will continue to run the Linux kernel on my non-Sun machines. I know that if the license is compatible enough, Debian will soon make a Debian GNU/Solaris which boots the Solaris kernel into a Debian userland (on Sun hardware). That seems to be the way of it.
Clickety Click
Just like SCO, when a company start whipping out the lawsuits it's good sign the company is in deep shit! No company would risk bad PR unless it was their last gasp of air to maintain market share.
Just goes to show, when a company is about to go under, they at least go down fighting.
Life is not for the lazy.
You have to understand that the provisions in the CDDL are designed to protect the users against liability for using software.
If you use software that is promoted under a F/OSS software license such as the BSD or CDDL or GPL it can inadvertantely make you liable to patent claims.
Now the BSD and GPL do nothing to address these issues. Nothing in the BSD allows a person to grant rights to use patented software... They are only deal with copyright issues.
When people say 'intellectual property' they mean 1 of 3 completely different things. It's a bit of a misnomer, IP is a concept that doesn't realy exist. It is mearly sloppy language when taken in a legal context..
The reason that it is not GPL compatable is because it's addresses certain aspects of patents that the GPL doesn't.
All RMS (and I beleive they are planning to do this in the near future) has to do is address patent issues in a similar vein with a future draft of the GPL and then you will be able to use Solaris code in Linux.
This is not a move from Sun against Linux, I beleive, this open sourcing of Solaris is a way to promote the use and developement of Solaris.
The patent stuff is just a unfortunate artifact of today's legal climate and CANNOT be avoided anymore.
Don't worry, this move by Sun will promote free and open source software.
Remember folks, what matters is the software. If the Linux kernel obsolecense and falls by the wayside because another free software OS gains prominance, that's OK. (it won't happen, though. Linux kernel itself is very very competative in design.)
Most of the FOSS software that you use and depend on can easily exist in a BSD or Solaris enviroment as anything else.
Everyone! Look the other way! It's really Microsoft's fault that we're doing all this to you really - don't blame us. We've got nothing to do with it.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Linux is unencumbered by patents, and has major corporations (IBM, HP, Novell) standing behind this fact for their customers.
Solaris is encumbered by Microsoft, Sun, and SCO patents.
Companies are in for one reason, and that is to increase their profit. If giving something free to others helps increase their profit, they will do it.
The difference between IBM and SUN, in my opinion, is that IBM is profiting from Linux and the Open Source community. Sun on the other hand is losing some of their consumers because of them. IBM is not a superior company then SUN in this specific area. Both companies are exactly the same, run by management that only cares to increase their operations.
The Open Sourcing of Solaris 10 is just one of the ways SUN has to increase the level of investment on their Operating System but they do not support Linux or the open source community as they claim.
IBM's support to Linux and the OS community cannot be placed on the same level because one is growing strong because of it, the other is becoming a victim of the movement.
Stupid idea. Companies change over time. They will regard all contributions and the whole package THEIR sole property and will do with it as they see fit. Just wait for a drop in stocks, or a sale, then the worms come out of the woodwork.
An unacceptable license is, and always are, unacceptable.
But do they have a license to ill?
Without that, I don't think they stand much of a chance.
paintball
Patents, already covered. Sun may at ANY time, due to loopholes in the license, close down everybody else distributing and working on "OpenSolaris". Besides, THEY own all YOUR changes (slave-license). In GPL ONLY YOU OWN YOUR OWN CHANGES (unless you donate it to the FSF).
OpenSolaris has a license incompatible with the FSF (Free Software License). While TONS of other licenses are indeed compatible with FSF and the GPL: Check it out..
Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
'When I throw a dog a bone, I don't wanna know how it tastes'.
After reading though the ./er postings and
...
GrokLaw's take on the CDDL, and the warning
(blog) about Sun's 1600 patents, there have
been enough issues exposed (IANAL) to stay
away from ANY Sun CDDL code (so I am waste-
binning the DTrace code I D/Led UNOPENED).
Sun, after wrestling with MSFT for more than
5 years (over Java, etcetera), has joined the
Bill-Borg collective (IMHO). Their secret
cross-licensing deal with MSFT regarding
software patents SHOULD raise alarm bells
with ALL F/OSS developers. Especially when
you consider that very many (most) software
patents issued by the USPTO are based upon
a long background of "prior art". Corporations
can ONLY be trusted to do whatever they judge
to be in their self-interest AT THAT TIME, as
it is in their nature. The deepest corporate
pockets buys the most lawyers and the most
"face-time" with the politicians, which puts
F/OSS development efforts at a disadvantage
in the courtroom -- the ONLY protections that
F/OSS has is the GPL/LGPL. I predict that
Sun's CDDL will morph only to the point that
the F/OSS community will be placated/numbed
into becoming Sun's unpaid "employees".
At some point in the not-too-distant future,
the Sun-MSFT Alliance will turn (in the courts)
against GPL/LGPL, in effect supporting SCO Group
lawsuits. This future event is both predictable
and inevitable.
Just my ever depreciating $00.02 worth
What a petty and misguided attack on Bruce.
Bruce's analysis and instincts about this issue are right on target.
Something very bad is going on at Sun... management is consistently posturing and conniving, rather than focusing on producing value. As a reluctant stockholder of Sun, I'm concerned. As a spectator, I'm disgusted. I almost have more respect for the SCO people... because I don't really believe that SCO management is deluded enough to think that what they're doing is anything but a naked grab for money. Sun thinks it's on a holy mission.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I work for a company that has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft. One of our lawyers explained that if we write code that infringes on a Microsoft patent, we're covered. But Microsoft insisted on an exclusion for Open Source. If we use an OS product that infringes, the cross-license agreement does not apply; they can come after us and our customers.
> The mozilla license has a paragraph that says: you can convert
> this license to the GPL and mix it with GPL software legally.
> Sun deleted that paragraph
I checked the red-line diff between the CDDL and MPL and I can't see any such paragraph. Please explain.
"For /.ers who don't like reading a lot, the most important point is that 'it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves" ... blah ... blah ... blah ...
:)
Here! was it a good article ??!?!?!
No free Solaris for those who want it, and Sun would still have its patents for all kinds of suing?
I, for one, mod down lame stereotypical jokes.
My head Hurtz.
This thing is starting to have some additional odors to it. It's weird, reading some of it, it gives me the sense that they were forced to write something aiming at multiple moving targets. I am guessing a few points: It not only looks to seriously fork and harm the now standard and accepted gpl version of upcoming computing (this is obvious really), but it also looks to down the road harm Sun itself, which don't compute on the surface or two levels deep at least. Because of that, the odor goes to the secret ms/sun agreements and the personalities involved there. Hmm, have to tippy toe carefully now..I am just wondering what exactly went down in some backrooms off the aisle away from the "official" backroom? People will have to use their corruption/conspiracy imagination on that one.
And we have the still outstanding shakeout with sco/ibm and novell really, as in "who knows" what that outcome will do. Despite all the claims and assurances from tom, dick and harry across the net, it's still in the court system and that's a gigantic wildcard, one of the moving targets I mentioned.
As for developers, you take your chances I guess. Looks like you could enjoy the fruits of your labors to a very controlled and limited level until such a time in the future as someone surprises you with a "OK, thanks, see ya later or pay me bigtime" notice, that you would have agreed to in advance. Like painting yourself into a corner. That's the best analogy I have in simplistic form. Caveat emptor.
The volume management on Solaris is tacked on. Veritas is an option as it is on linux, HP/UX, AIX and almost any other operating system out there. I prefer the BSDL LVM implementation over just about anything out there. LVM works *very* well and the same version runs on Linux that runs on HP/UX. Solaris may be more polished on Big Iron, but Linux isn't really lagging by much. Just look at what IBM has committed with their new Power5 based servers where feature parity between AIX and Linux is almost a reality.
So while Solaris is more polished on Sun hardware I have a hard time believing that Sun has been doing much more than lagging behind other Commercial Unix shops for the last several years. Look at how far AIX and HP/UX have come and the hardware they run on. Sun's JVM isn't fastest on Solaris so where is that polish?
Has anyone ever thought of writing a whole bunch of insane software licenses, copyrighting them, and then refusing anyone from infringing on their copyright by using said licenses? Is that even possible?
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
The reason for the complexity is to assure that the wording is ambiguous. That way there is plenty to litigate over and the lawyers can get their hands into everyone's pockets, plantiffs, defendants, court system (taxpayers), each other, developers, corporations, etc. Corporations with big legal teams like this because even the threat of litigation is useful in extending their reach beyond what the law might allow. Only those unable to bear the cost of litigation have anything to fear. They are like chickens, easy to pluck and ready for taking.
To understand what freedom is about in this country, you have to know how it works.
We must encourage more litigation until the entire system of innovation is completely killed. Then, and only then will the system finally collapse.
If this bothers you, go into the ministry or into the legal profession. Both sectors are much stronger now, and there is much more money to be made in either than in developing software. They also have the advantage that you can brainwash folks without the burden of writing complex code.
Yes, Veritas is available for Linux, as well. I'd prefer to stick with comparing the LVM's that come with each of the OSs. Even still, Disk Solstice is much better than the 'Linux Volume Manager,' or whatever you would like to call it.
/dev/hd[az] garbage? I'd hate to locate one storage array among a few hundred in a real datacenter. Save your Linux fanboyism for your bedroom, don't bring it into a real IT department.
I'm aware AIX does have the best LVM around. IBM is going to keep pushing AIX, and the only reason IBM is pushing Linux as much as it is, is because they're trying to dominate a niche market - a market Sun and HP both are in.
As far as this 'Linux on Power5' garbage I keep hearing, it's one server that IBM is pushing it on. Look at the rest of the pSeries line. There's how many systems? Certainly more than one, and IBM is pushing AIX on those.
Do you think IBM is really pushing Linux as much as you'd like to think? Why did they incorporate Linux compatibility into AIX? So, they wouldn't have to switch the hand that feeds them to a under-developed, low-level operating system, called Linux.
Solaris not being polished? Nonsense. Almost every task you can think of in Solaris can be configured through a slick, very slick Java GUI called SMC. SMC also can remotely administrate your whole Solaris network. Show me a Linux tool that can do that. Solaris also supports almost every UNIX standard in existence. You even have a totally seperate directory for XPG4 junk. If you don't like the traditional Solaris/XPG4 userland tools, check out blastwave.org and download the GNU ones. Big deal.
Isn't Linux still using that lame
There's pissing contests all over. OSS is just another one.
It's remotely possible that I could make some money from OSRM stock someday, but that's never worked before. I own about 8% of Progeny Linux Inc., and haven't made a cent from that. All of my money is coming from speaking and consulting. Nobody pays for my work on Open Source, which takes up about half my time, so I have to pay for it myself.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"..... developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code."
:)
First we train the customers to do our work for us.....
it is best for any person working on linux or another gpl project not to take a look at _any_ of the source code that sun is/will be releasing.
we will have to be carefull as it is, and i'm sure they are on the lookout waiting for us to make a single mistake. and a single mistake will be all it takes...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
/.'er un-tie! err unite!
Sun will not have the Contributors' Agreement finished for weeks, perhaps months.
Bruce Perens is an Open Source evangelist = another frickin witch hunter...
sun needs to embrace open source quickly and decisively if they want to survive and gain a broader base of support from developers.
Get your torrents...