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.'"
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.
>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.
???? Precisely which "bug" are you refering to?
The fact that the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL and ties prospective users to Sun products exclusively, or the fact that the Sun - Microsoft cross-licensing agreements will remain undisclosed to prospective developers?
Caveat emptor!
I expect they would prefer to release under the GPL. The only additional freedom of BSD is not to reciprocate!
But admittedly as a user (that is, when looking for others' code to use) I look for the BSD or other nonrestrictive license. Allow people to leech and they certainly will!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
And the story keeps getting worse: They can sue Linux developers over those patents. They can sue their own Open Source partners. Now we hear it's part of a new IP licensing arrangement with Microsoft.
I am having very much trouble getting a warm fuzzy feeling of trust like the one I would want to have about a company before contributing to their software.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You can't be serious.
Everything we've heard about Sun's strategy so far seems to be geared to act as a "spoiler" rather than a partner in the Open Source community. The most egregious part is the implicit threat: we've got 1600 patents held over your head, Linux users, and we've got an agreement with Microsoft about them...
I care a whole lot.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What this boils down to IMO is that Solaris 10 is not a competitor to Linux. It's chained by a complicated license that forces you to scratch your head and wonder where the company's intents lie on the spectrum running from "hobbled" to "insidious". Whatever Sun's intent, their license fails the test of "it takes only a few minutes for me to understand how it protects developers and users". I predict a big fizzle, and the dismantling at Sun of this license approach within three years.
I care a whole lot.
Yes, but what we should care about is wether the consumer benefits, not its impact on Linux or any other OS.
If consumers get a better product for less, they they win. If Linux suffers, then it is beacuse it hasn't convinced consumers that it is better, and deserves its fate.
OSS is a good, but not only, model for software development. In a free market, a company has a right to decide how to go to market and whether to share its work.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Have you even read the liscence? It says SUN will not protect even their 'trusted parters' for 3rd party patent infringement that might be in the code SUN itself is relasing. Thats part of the problem.
In other words, Sun could release code that is Patented by Microsoft, have you improve on it, and then let Microsoft sue you for using it. At that point, they would be free to use your code (because of the cross-licensing agreement), but you'd have to pay a million dollars to (chose at least one of) Microsoft, Sun and/or your lawyers to get the rights to use the code that you gave them for free.
The part of the mozilla license that sun removed is the one that requires contributors to indicate if they are aware of patents that apply to the code being contributed.
On the upside(?), I guess that someone else could do the same thing to SUN...
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Your sentiment would be correct if this were an open market and a level playing field for all competitors. When software patents are brought into the picture, they are first used to intimidate the customer away from what otherwise might be a technically superior product, and then later on actual lawsuits can be brought to remove that competitor from the market. When a product and competitor are removed for non-technical reasons, quality in general declines due to the decreased need for the remaining products to compete. Prices increase for the same reason. And the consumer loses.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Actually, it's the need to encourage innovation. Protection is the means, to encourage innovation is the end. And there are deep and serious questions regarding whether software patenting promotes or retards innovation in general.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.