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.'"

Comments

RTFA

[joNDoty]

How am I supposed to RTFA when the summary alone fills my entire browser window!

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally users on slashdot are smarter then this....

To read the article, you simply need to point your cursor (The white arrow shaped thing on your screen) on top of the link.

If you have done this correctly, the cursor arrow should change into a hand. If it is not a hand, try moving the cursor closer to the link.

Once you have successfully moved over the link, press your left mouse button once. The article should come up for you to begin loading.

If you have any further questions please email us at support@microsoft.com.

Was this article helpful
Yes | No

Re:RTFA

[m50d]

I have no arrow, just a block where text is black-on-white, and it certainly doesn't turn into a hand, you insensitive clod.

Translation please

[drgath159]

Who wants to translate that summary into english for us ANALs?

Off to RTFA will probably less luck.

Re:Translation please

[lakeland]

Summary: There is a bug in the draft of the licence. With any luck it will be fixed when the licence is released.

Re:Translation please

[sl4shd0rk]

Lay down with whores, wake up with sores.

Re:Translation please

[ponds]

off to RTFA will probably less luck.

Translation please?

Re:Translation please

[drgath159]

Sorry to offend the spelling police.

Re:Translation please

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

The even shorter answer

[lakeland]

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...

Re:The even shorter answer

[Anonymous Coward]

???? 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!

Re:The even shorter answer

[SunFan]

Why should I wish Sun or any company luck.

Because everyone is an underdog in this Microsoft world of ours.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

I have discussed this twice so far with one of the PR people listed on the press release regarding the 1600 patents. Never has there been a mention of "bugs" in the license.

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

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

People should stop caring so much about this.

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

Re:The even shorter answer

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

People should stop caring so much about this.

Come on Scott McNealy, we know it's you.

If you are going to astroturf, you shouldn't do it with a username of "Sun Fan" -- we all know who Sun's number one fan is after all...

Re:The even shorter answer

[l3v1]

People should stop caring so much about this

Only a prick, or someone whole heartedly against FOSS development and community would say anything even remotely close to this.

If a company makes sources available only to allow others to freely improve it then the company profiting from the free work of others, but not allowing them to use either the original or the improved version in any ways even close to FOSS, then that is something that we should damn well care about.

If the further developed sources would remain in the hands of the people who worked on it to use them following the ways of FOSS and GPL, that would be good indeed. But this is absolutely not the case here.

They just seek free labor and at the same time try to make themselves appear good guys standing on FOSS people's side. Which - in this move at least - they don't.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You do realise you are spreading anti-Sun FUD. It might be true - though I personally doubt that - but it's most definitely FUD. You're saying "if you partner with Sun they can sue you over these patents". FUD. FUD. FUD.

I hate this "new wave" political arm of OSS. I much prefer the reliable ranting of RMS regarding Free Software to the OSS FUD from Bruce and ESR.

Re:The even shorter answer

[turgid]

This may be flamebait, but is also insightful.

Bruce has invested his career in "Linux", was one of the original Debian people and was previously employed by HP, whi fired him when he was too public in his support of Linux and Free and Open Source Software, as was reported here.

What he did was to expose HP's pro-Linux propaganda for what it was.

Unfortunately for a lot of people, Solaris is a much more mature and high-quality kernel than Linux, in many ways. Linux was "open source" first, and so has the biggest bandwagon.

The Open-sourcing of Solaris is a direct swipe at IBM, HP and RedHat, but especially RedHat. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure that out.

Internally, Solaris is a very different design to Linux. I'm sure when it is opened, the Linux fanboyz will deride it for many religious reasons, however, if an enthusiastic community of developers springs up around Open Solaris, Linux is in for a run for its money, so to speak.

RedHat and HP will be the biggest losers.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:The even shorter answer

[darkonc]

anon coward said:
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...

Re:The even shorter answer

[thogard]

The story isn't over yet.

Solaris 10 has some major changes that I can't audit. That means its not going on my production systems ever.

I've been recommending top of the line sun gear from the days of the 4/110 (1987) up to a e10k.

Their current junk (services and zones) is way past the line. I could cope with pipes in /etc (ok so I can still DDOS the system because some moron at sun hasn't figured out /etc is not the place for pipes.)

What I can't deal with is binary file that change with every boot like the new services stuff. How do I audit that? If someone pokes junk into it, how do I know the system is running stuff when I'm not looking (the cool thing about the new replacement for init/inetd/cron is that you can start programs when no one is logged in). That is a result of a recent com-sci moron that thinks "data hiding" is a good idea. This is init under unix which is one of the only true sandboxes. I look at the new services as adding the windows registry to Solaris and thats a root kit script kiddies wet dream.

The other sandbox is the partition table. Too bad they haven't figured out IDE disks yet either. Try putting a a disk greater than 128 gig in a sun box and write to all the sectors. Come on guys, track/sector/head went away a LONG time ago. If your OS people don't know that, please fire them.

The new zones stuff takes something on the order of 2000% of some resources compared to jails from bsd when fully setup (Thanks to their stupid update system which you can't get away from. I want a jail with only a program that can be run from init).

Sorry guys but all my boxes are scheduled for freebsd which means I don't need your hardware anymore. My tests so far show its faster than Solaris 10 and much faster than Solaris 8/9 and has all the features I need.

If you get that sort of review from someone that still runs a 1989 hardware because its sun means its time to unload the sun stock. The '89 box still runs sun bsd unix so I'm back to where I started.

My research on Solaris 10 says they are deader than BSD. And I did unload my sun stock.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, but what we should care about is wether the consumer benefits, not its impact on Linux or any other OS.

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

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

Dear AC,

When someone threatens you, and tells the rest of the world that they are committing a philanthropic act, it is not FUD to set the story straight. Sun's "grant to the Open Source programmers" is written to threaten the Linux programmers, and indeed anyone who isn't working on Solaris. And yet they promote it as deserving greater recognition than IBM's grant, which was for all Open Source licenses that existed when IBM made the grant.

Sun's conduct is deceptive, and setting the deception straight is hardly FUD.

Bruce

Re:The even shorter answer

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

If by level playing field you mean that ideas should not be patentable, there isn't a level playing field, in the US at least, due to our Constitution. Patents are designed to protect the owner's rights to use the idea for a limited period of time. To that extent, Linux (and any other software) must either not violate the patent or obtain a license to use it. Simply not charging is not enough. Eventually, after the patent expires, everyone benefits from teh right to use the inovation, so society and the individual creator 's needs are counterbalanced to benefit both.

Now, is the patent system messed up and should patent laws be revised to deal with new tech? Certainly, but the need to protect innovation is still there; just as copyrights are needed to protect other types of work. I think we can agree that their is a need for IP, otherwise there would be very little motivation for innovation if you couldn't profit from it.

As a side note, I had a friend whose company developed a software control for a manufacturing process, only to wind up in a patent dispute with someone who had a patent on a mechanical process to do the same thing; so it's not just software patents that can be a problem.

Re:The even shorter answer

[SunFan]

I'm suprised by your reply. It seems you have become a linux fanboy of the most extreme kind. How is Sun's actions a "spoiler"? Seriously, your only possible complaint is that you can't cherry pick Sun's kernel technology for yourself if you write code under a different license. It is this selfishness that is causing a distasteful reek from the anti-Sun crowd.

At first, I was impressed that this whole discussion was starting off fairly maturely, but it appears it all fell apart this morning.

Even worse, the moderators think your opinion is cast in gold from the heavens. My opinion of Slashdot is falling rapidly.

Re:The even shorter answer

[SunFan]

I don't work for Sun. I don't even play hockey.
A good astroturfer studies the trolls, the ones who can incite a response without the reader realizing it. My bias is clear, take it or leave it, I don't care.

Bruce Perens, on the other hand, he is a master astroturfer for the people who make money off of Linux. The people who don't make money off of linux, they don't care. But watch out for Red Hat, HP, and IBM. They do care; they care very much.

Re:The even shorter answer

[SunFan]

Only a prick, or someone whole heartedly against FOSS development and community would say anything even remotely close to this.

No, only a prick, or someone with money to make bashing Sun, would say anything other than I said. What are the core values of OSS? Freedom--from both the developers' and the users' perspective. Sun chose their path, the BSDs chose theirs, Apache chose theirs, and Linux has its own. The are communities unto themselves, and share in other ways with eachother (e.g., sharing applications across systems).

Again, people are inflating this whole issue. The emotional response indicates Sun is hurting the feelings of the Linux fanboys by not showering them with $500,000,000 worth of easy tech. Please, grow up.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

The moderators value my opinion highly because they know me for a long time - some of them 10 years - and they have enough experience with me and with what plays out after I tell them something to understand that I'm usually on target. I don't believe you can expect the same sort of reception when you identify yourself as "SunFan". People would think you're a PR flack - it could well be true.

I don't want to cherry-pick the Solaris software. That might have been useful 5 years ago, but no longer. But I am very concerned about those patents, and the way the patent grant - valid only for Solaris developers - is positioned as a legal threat to the Linux developers, but promoted as if it's a bigger deal than the IBM grant that was valid for more than 50 different licenses including the one used on Linux.

That sort of deceptive publicity needs to be countered. And that doesn't reflect poorly on the maturity of the debate.

Bruce

Re:The even shorter answer

[SunFan]

perhaps you haven't noticed the large number of opterons-running-linux that Sun has sold in the last quarter or two.

That Sun sells and supports Linux makes the anti-Sun lobby even more confusing. There are just a lot of people here with an ax to grind.

Re:The even shorter answer

[Bruce Perens]

the need to protect innovation is still there

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

Re:The even shorter answer

[superpulpsicle]

Well let me summarize what Sun is doing.

1.) See what IBM lawyers are doing.

2.) See what M$ lawyers are doing.

3.) See what Linux GPL is doing.

4.) Do whatever they are doing.

5.) Put purple sticker on it.

6.) Profit!

Re:The even shorter answer

[Registered Coward v2]

the need to protect innovation is still there

Actually, it's the need to encourage innovation.

Well, I'd argue that patents protect innovation and a free market economy encourages innovation through the possibility of rewards, but that's really just a semantic difference more than a philosophical one. Either way, we need to protect, encourage and reward innovation in order to foster it.

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.

I think were are in violent agreement overall. Our current patent system was designed for an economy where new ideas where innovation resulted in tangible items that expressed the idea, and patents protected that expression, not the fundamental concept. For example, I could patent a mechanical cash register, but not th idea of exchanging money and calculating how much change to give.

The problem with software patents is that software carries out an action, or enables carrying out existing actions (buying goods) in a new medium; and the manner in which underlying code can carry that out can be very different. As a result, people can't protect the way the task is accomplished by copyrighting the code, since non-infringing code code be created, so people have patented the what, not the how. Even though much of the what is merely restating things that have been accomplished in other mediums for some time (imagine someone trying to patent the "travel by steamship" in the age of sail) our system has allowed it because, and therefore needs to be changed.

This is natural.

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural, but one should be vigilante.

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...

[lewis2]

What would RMS do?

Re:What would...

[peawee03]

Make it GPL.

Re:What would...

[SunFan]

The CDDL behaves just as the GPL does, so RMS really wouldn't have a solid basis to argue against it. If RMS doesn't express that OpenSolaris is a step in the right direction, then that would be disappointing.

Re:What would...

[PornMaster]

I wonder if something could piss RMS off enough to make him shave his face in protest. :)

Re:What would...

[dnoyeb]

I have similar issues with the CPL and the EPL from IBM. Not about patents. The EPL/CPL hinges upon whether or not your code is a derivative work. Yet it neglects to describe the conditions underwhich you code becomes a derivative work. That is, they dont describe the term 'derivative work' as it applies to the license.

My analysis of the EPL helped me to see what is so good about the GPL and the LGPL. They do exactly what they appear to do on the surface, no surprises.

Re:What would...

[faragon]

Sorry, I know he has done a tremendous amount for the community, but no where near what Linus has.
It is your opinion about Richard and Linus. I don't agree.

About Sun, I hope that they do that for good, anyway, IMO, software patent strategies may be a big problem for introducing Linux into the mainstream. These big raptors^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcompanies target is to kill Linux as an alternative before it reaches its critical mass. Fortunately, Linux has critical mass enough, as many microelectronics companies are pushig for it. Needless to say that IBM, for its services division are doing tons of money by using Linux.
May be, in the end, the only that could "save" Linux in the mainstream are the big corp lawyers with interests related to the **true** open source community. Please note that I do not want to see RMS as the "final guru" or a "GNU bishop", he is a man, has a voice, and you can agree or not with him. You'll be freeeeee (just kidding about the "GNU/FSF himn", sorry) ;-)

Re:What would...

[Doomdark]

My analysis of the EPL helped me to see what is so good about the GPL and the LGPL. They do exactly what they appear to do on the surface, no surprises.

.... except when you consider LGPL with languages like Java and C# (search for discussion on why Apache people don't think they can use any LGPL'ed code with their own code). I wish there were no surprises, but the gaping hole in LGPL is the vague (or misguided) definition of dynamic and and static linking. It's ok for C and C++, but has trouble with (some) newer languages.

On the other hand, I do still use both licenses, but in some cases there's need for dual-open-source-licensing, which is silly. :-/

Re:What would...

[dnoyeb]

No, there is nothing vague about the LGPLs definitions. To put it simply for Java, if you need the class in your classpath to compile, then you are a derivative work, as far as the (L)GPL is concerned. The difference for the LGPL is;

1. They give special provisions to some code even if it is a derivative work.

2. Its not 'viral' like the GPL. You can protect code by putting it under the LGPL. Then you can unprotect the parts you want people to connect with by putting the interfaces, abstract classes, etc. under something like the BSD or simply unlicensed.

Apache may/may not be correct that they can not use any LGPLed code. But whatever theyr reason is for not using the LGPL code is certainly applies to the EPL. What should happen is the architects of the software should put their code under different licenses depending on the purpose of the code. This dual licnesing is only possible under non-viral licenses like the LGPL.

support free developmen

[delirium of disorder]

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?

Re:support free developmen

[timeOday]

Buisnesses and individuals that choose the BSDL should be given the most respect

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!

Re:support free developmen

[k4_pacific]

I don't know if that would be legal or not. But even if it was done against competitor X, then upstart Y could spring up, take the BSD-licensed code, add some enhancements, and compete against them anyways. Also, it would not be compatible with the GPL because the GPL places NO restrictions on redistribution.

Without this clause, the code can be co-opted by a competitor and used against them, with this clause, it cannot be relicensed under the GPL as it has a restriction on distribution.

Re:support free developmen

[freemacmini]

Sun doesn't want linux to benefit from any solaris technology. They would have never made their license BSDL for that reason. Ironically due to the way the license is written neither can freebsd.

Maybe that's what's wrong with the BSD license. Sun took BSD code, added stuff to it and now makes it impossible for BSD to gain any benefit.

Re:support free developmen

[freemacmini]

Because it was cheaper then disposing it legally and they get a tax break at the same time.

Re:support free developmen

[Homology]

Maybe that's what's wrong with the BSD license. Sun took BSD code, added stuff to it and now makes it impossible for BSD to gain any benefit.

There is nothing wrong with BSD license. It's quite simply a free license. Perhaps copycenter describes BSDL best :

copycenter: n.

[play on 'copyright' and 'copyleft']

1. The copyright notice carried by the various flavors of freeware BSD. According to Kirk McKusick at BSDCon 1999: "The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called 'copycenter', which is 'take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want'".

Re:support free developmen

[m50d]

Feature. The BSD people want companies to be able to do that, otherwise they'd use GPL.

Microsoft is right this time

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Too much Law

[Anonymous Coward]

When I studied Computer science I didnt realise I needed to be a lawyer as well.

This licensing/contract cr*p has become has gone too far.

Re:Too much Law

[britneys 9th husband]

I don't mind that at all, as long as I can make $500 an hour, like many lawyers do.

Imagine... if you had just 9,000 billable hours a year, you could make an annual salary of $4,500,000! And many lawyers make a lot more than that!

I think you're on to something -- we need to find a way to redefine software engineers as a type of lawyer. You've never heard of lawyer jobs being outsourced to India have you? Didn't think so.

Re:Too much Law

[Bruce Perens]

It is the unfortunate truth that the occupation of engineers today is to marry together other peoples copyrights and patents to construct a derivative work, often one intended to be sold as a product. When I learned to use a soldering iron, I did not think of myself in those terms, but they were true then, and became even more true as ICs happened and then as programmable devices came about.

We are approaching a point beyond which the art of engineering will be so seriously hindered that only very large companies will be able to approach the creation of software products. Legislative action will be necessary. But will the big companies win that legislative battle? They are winning it so far.Bruce

Re:Too much Law

[Ogerman]

We are approaching a point beyond which the art of engineering will be so seriously hindered that only very large companies will be able to approach the creation of software products. Legislative action will be necessary. But will the big companies win that legislative battle? They are winning it so far.

What we probably need is a massive grassroots movement aimed at tearing down software patents in the US. (Similar to the one aimed at preventing them in the EU). We don't have to stand around and accept what we see around us. But that is precisely what most people are doing, based upon the commentary surrounding the Sun/MS patent nonsense. What will it take to get people peeved enough to take action? A combined Sun/MS lawsuit against Linux developers / IBM / etc.?

But what is perhaps more dangerous is the FUD that will arise out of this. And that is why I think we need to destroy software patents now, as a preemptive measure.

Woah

[pHatidic]

For /.ers who don't like reading a lot

Where is the ironic tag when you need it.

Re:Woah

[game kid]

Indeed. Combined with the approx. 22-page first article (granted, including comments), that summary is crushing to read.

The article would get a Score: 5, Massive from me, but I have no bloody mod points...

Re:Microsoft's Secret Weapon?

[sm00th]

It's anti-Linux because Solaris is a technically superior operating system. Don't involve your pitiful Linux vs. Microsoft argument with Solaris, and justify that Sun is teh sux.

I knew it!

[kbahey]

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.

Re:I knew it!

[freemacmini]

The fact that the sun licence is carefully crafted so as not to allow solaris code to be included in any GPLed program pretty much shows exactly how much of a hand MS had in this license.

I am not saying they don't have the right to do it, it's their code and they can do whatever they want with it but it smells like a trap to me.

I think they are hoping some linux programmer will look at the code and then implement something in linux that does something similar at which point either Sun, MS or some other entity sponsored by one of them will pounce.

Re:I knew it!

[SunFan]

IBM is the contrary, it has redeemed itself from being a monopolistic, arrogant behemoth to a major player in open source now.

Yeah, right. IBM is now the cute cuddly teddy bear. People complain about Sun being inconsistent, yet find no fault in IBM selling every OS and architecture ever invented, most of which have overlapping purposes and competing sales teams. Sometimes, the IBM fanboys' blinders are on so tight that they double as a pin-hole camera during eclipses.

Re:I knew it!

[Bruce Perens]

Well, sm00th, I'll explain why this might matter to you. If you are satisfied with the Sun or MS product, it might not matter. But the fastest developing OS technology today, the one most likely to bring you future improvements, is not the one from Sun or MS, it's Linux and the vast collection of Open Source that rides on top of it. Now, we are seeing the first shots in a battle to hinder those Open Source folks, and bring fewer benefits to you the customer. And the war is not fought with technical superiority on a level playing field. It's fought with the FUD of patent lawsuit threats and then, probably, real lawsuits. That's not how the best product wins. And when the best product doesn't win, you're numbered among the losers.

Bruce

Re:I knew it!

[Bruce Perens]

Dear AC,

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, and made sure that its patent grant wouldn't cover GPL software.

In contrast, when IBM, Eclipse founder, made its own patent grant, it covered GPL software and software under all OSI accepted licenses at that time.

There appears to be a certain difference in intent.

Bruce

Re:I knew it!

[passthecrackpipe]

Dude, nobody is accusing IBM from being a cuddly bear. Few people doubt that IBM is in the business of making money - any which way they can. I have frequent discussions with IBM about getting some of their desktop software to run on linux, and the answer is *always*: "show us we can make money doing so". IBM is not a charity, and nobody sane expects them to be. However, they understand that Linux is a "sales-enabler" for the hardware, software and services business, and as such it behooves them to be recognised as a Linux leader. This includes donating source, patents, efforts, time and money to the "open source community" as such. These are all strong indicators of strategic, offensive (is in, going on the offense) thinking. The kind of action of a comapny that has seen the future, and knows which way the bread is buttered.

Now, picture this - IBM donates 400 patents, and are widely lauded for their gift. Sun "donates" 1600 patents, and "open source" Slowlaris, and are getting a sound kicking. Now ask yourself why IBM gets more kudos for less effort.

Well, Mr. McNeally, I didn't think you would guess it either, so here is the answer: IBM's donation has no strings attached. The patents can be used freely within the specified context - i.e. Open Source, - and can even be used within this context to compete with AIX, for example. Your "donation" on the other hand, only benefits Sun. Nobody else. This is a strong indication of non-strategic -i.e. tactical- thinking, an example of "castle building" or defensive thought.

All Sun sees is a perceived threat to their business, and cannot think of a way to benefit from the situation, so they grow hard, and dig in. This is a seriously flawed way of conducting business, and shows what a weak strategist Scott McNeally really is - as the Tao Te Ching states: "On the importance of yielding. It is said that a reed that is not rigid and bends will not break and in so doing will endure."

Re:I knew it!

[rembo]

>The mozilla license has a paragraph that says: you can convert this license to the GPL and mix it with GPL software legally.

My understanding was some MPL software like Mozilla was dual licensed under the GPL. There is no such clause in the MPL license text.

If there was Sun had to take it out.

Re:I knew it!

[wkitchen]

I don't trust it either. Sun's "gift" is a poison apple. They're no friend to the OSS community.

Re:I knew it!

[Bruce Perens]

This is in exhibit A to the MPL 1.1 applied to Mozilla products, here. If you look at the MPL itself the exhibit is there at the end in template form. A Mozilla relicensing FAQ is here.

Bruce

Re:I knew it!

[m50d]

Dude, we've always been anti-sun for their obnoxious java license.

Re:I knew it!

[Ogerman]

Just yesterday, I was thinking about what Sun has in mind with this OpenSolaris thing and CDDL.

Lets look at this realistically. Solaris / OpenSolaris does not have the industry-wide momentum that Linux does. Even if Sun chose GPL and the community rallied around it, it would take several years for OpenSolaris to become a viable product for the mainstream. For example, Linux has an enormous head-start in the area of hardware and architecture support. As a counterexample, look at *BSD. It is very much technically competitive with Linux and is fully open source, but it doesn't have anywhere near the momentum and community that Linux does. I really have a hard time seeing Sun's maneuver as anything but a spoiler for Linux, possibly encouraged by some part of their MS settlement. The truth is, Sun very well could have adopted Linux, as IBM and Novell have. They could have used their experience from Solaris to improve Linux, as IBM has done with their AIX experience. In fact, it seems to me illogical that Sun wouldn't do this from a business perspective.

Now, if Sun had only used a GPL-incompatible copyright license for OpenSolaris, that would almost be understandable, with the perspective of distinguishing it from Linux. But then they started playing the software patent game. Frankly, any company that is a proponent of software patents gets bad marks in my book. Software patents, in addition to being unethical, are the pure antithesis of the spirit and philosophy of open source. There's no middle ground.

Re:Microsoft's Secret Weapon?

[drgath159]

Microsoft doesn't have linux becuase it is linux, it hates it becuase it is the competition. With Sun knocking linux out of the way, who do you think Micosofts crosshairs center on then? Bad conspiricy theory if you ask me.

Re:Jealosy

[luvirini]

hmm.. but flabaitish toward the end, but still..

A few comments on the valid points:
+ Linux took off mainly because of shitty x86 platform support and pricing from Sun and other UNIX vendors
This is very much true, the status of the UNIX:es for so long was what gave space for Linux to grow to what it is now.

+ Solaris is a technically superior Unix kernel to Linux and always has been
Traditionally been, very true, technically superior now is more depatable, but in any case today the differences are more that one is better at one thing and other at other.

One of the real weaknesses of Solaris is made very clear even in SUN:s own marketing where they say say that Solaris is guaranteed to run on over 275 Systems. That is, the driver support is still quite limited.

I mean, even Linux is very limited in driver support and one has to be carefull in buying hardware, but Solaris is way behind.

On the other hand features like Dtrace are things that Solaris is ahead in.

David Berlind is a buffoon

[Anonymous Coward]

At the first MIT Spam Conference, a few years ago, this creature calling itself a journalist got up and stood there with his bare face hanging out and told the assembled programmers and mail system operators that his goal in the anti-spam world was ...

... to get DNSBLs shut down.

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.

RMS was right, it's about freedom

[argoff]

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.

Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom

[sacrilicious]

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.

Absolutely. It's funny, I see cycles of RMS bashing, followed by swings towards recognition of his vision, followed by more bashing... lather rinse repeat. When OSS has a good day people love to nitpick about RMS's beard, his social awkwardness, what have you. When OSS is on the ropes, people realize that the only f'ing thing holding it together is the GPL and RMS's refusal to "find a middle ground".

Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom

[nagora]

I see cycles of RMS bashing, followed by swings towards recognition of his vision,

That's because generally what he says is true but he says it in a way that make him and everyone else on his side look like morons. If he would shut up he would be more productive despite the fact that what he says is true. It's a paradox that surfaces any time you have a brilliant and unlikeable person.

TWW

Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom

[Kynde]

Open Source, freedom, et al != technical superiority.

Technical superiority is not nearly as essential as freedom. Having technical superiority without freedom is somewhat like having sex with a fabulous gal... by forcing yourself on her.

Re:RMS was right, it's about freedom

[darkonc]

Technical superiority is not nearly as essential as freedom. Having technical superiority without freedom is somewhat like having sex with a fabulous gal... by forcing yourself on her.

No. It's more like having a really gorgeous girlfriend with a locked vanity belt and 7 nasty Venereal diseases. You can look, and even touch a little bit, but you can't get into the really interesting stuff without a lot of work -- and even then, you'll be worried about how messed up you'll be in the aftermath.

Actually, this just reminded me of a story my mother told me (seriously!) about a beautiful woman in France, during WWII who earned the dislike of all her neighbours by sleeping around with any German soldier who would have her (read: lots).
The people treated her with extreme distaste because of her activities, until after she died -- from the various venereal diseases she had been passing on to the German soldiers.

Moral of the story: If you're sleeping with the enemy, you'd be well off to figure out why they're sleeping with you.

Sun has shown itself to be a very fickle friend of the Open Source community, and has recently allied itself with Microsoft -- The FLOSS community's most obvious and biggest enemy. You can sleep with them if you like, but don't come running to me if you suddenly find parts falling off.

The complexity of the issue....

[scum-e-bag]

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.

Re:The complexity of the issue....

[Directrix1]

How about 1 year. 10 years the technology is irrelevant and the competition has been squashed.

Re:The complexity of the issue....

[SunFan]

I vote for nine or ten years. Figure two to three years pre-release for development and a seven year run in the marketplace.

A flaw in your logic

[argoff]

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.

Re:A flaw in your logic

[delirium of disorder]

OK...so the BSDL doesn't see copyright as immoral. No license does. Even putting your work in the public domain puts it within the legal but immoral intellectual property system. However, the BSDL grants the rights I wish people could automatically have.

I don't understand your slave analogy and how it's logically a similar doctrine (and what it would be logically similar to, my general reasoning, the BSDL?). Are you implying that the GPL doesn't tolerate immoral behavior ("owning slaves") because it doesn't allow re-licensing under a proprietary license. I personally think business should be allowed to use whatever license they want...they can even use some of my code in their proprietary licensed product. If the license is too restrictive, people should be smart enough not to buy that product or to just break the terms of the EULA...but it should be up to the consumer. The only thing anyone should not be allowed* to do, is cause real harm**. People can express anything they want, even if their expression entails reiterating an idea, c function, poem, etc that they did not author. Copyright, patents, and licenses are all restrictions on free speech. People also have the right to do whatever they want to their own property or body or the property or body of someone else with consent. Ideas, code, etc, are not property because they can be copied infinitely at no cost. When you "steal" a song from the RIAA, the RIAA still has the original! Free market economics (and even most command econ) is based on the idea that there are unlimited demands and wants, but only a finite supply of products. This is only true in an IP economy in that there's an insatiable demand for NEW ideas; the old ones can be copied until everyone has as many as they want. The profit motive that drives the demanded innovation is also totally scewed because people are simply more creative if they aren't directed by a private tyranny (corporation). Good art does not come from a marketing department, a better source might be an eccentric who produces what they find beautiful, not what sells. Good music doesn't come from the RIAA, it comes from some innovator on an indy label who is willing to risk not sounding exactly like every top 40 hit.

Although many exellent programmers (OSS and proprietary) are now well paid by big business, what most /.ers don't realize is that OSS has already won out in terms of influence! You don't have to look at Linux to see the results free software. TCP/IP is a free open standard implemented by a combination of capitalism (western ISPS, hardware/software developers), socialism (the university system, libraries, other public access, public funded R&D, much of it from the DoD), and anarchy (the actual content on the net itself). MS windows has BSD code in it. Apple's Darwin IS BSD. SUN/Solaris will soon be opening its code (its been illegally available for a while now). There are easily accessible underground source distributions of Cisco IOS too. Moreover, the programmers at places like Microsoft are standing on the shoulders of giants. Even if they weren't able to directly access old code bases, their conceptual training in computer science and software engineering came from a university system where the free exchange of ideas is quite highly valued. People no longer respect IP law. Downloading/Uploading an MP3 that someone else copyrighted may be illegal, but we all do it. Soon IP law will be a unenforceable anachronism. Its a stupid conservative restriction on civil liberates like the old sodomy laws that were struck down by the USA court system just recently. Hopefully drug laws will go the same way, then laws requiring taxes (when most of that money goes to killing people). The ultimate libertarian dream would be people slowly realizing that government only has power in their minds. Trying to reform IP law with Creative Commons to replace copyright, free access to patents to replace trade secrets and protected patents, GPL and BSDL to replace MS/Adobe/who

Premature flaming

[SunFan]

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.

Re:Premature flaming

[SunFan]

OpenSolaris cannot be made proprietary again. The cat will be out of the bag. HP, IBM, and Dell can take it and sell it without paying Sun for it. There's already talk about OpenSolaris distributions, like Gentoo.

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

Dear SunFan,

It seems you don't understand the issues. The CDDL is a copyright license. We can live with other people having any copyright license they want for their own software. We simply won't touch that software if the license is unacceptable, and we will make sure everybody knows if the license is unacceptable.

In contrast, patents can be used to prevent us from making our own software. And at $3 Million per defense (per the 2003 economic survey of the American Intellectual Property Law Association), we can not even afford to fight a patent that should not have been granted in the first place.

In other words, your friends are holding a gun to our heads and you want us to appreciate them.

Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[mukund]

Dear Bruce,

We can live with other people having any copyright license they want for their own software. We simply won't touch that software if the license is unacceptable, and we will make sure everybody knows if the license is unacceptable.

By your same argument, you can leave Sun and Microsoft alone and stick to using the software you like best. If you want the software patent system to be abolished, knocking Sun is not the right way to do it. Them releasing the patents to be used for CDDL (which I guess will become an OSI approved license) is a step forward from a company like Microsoft which doesn't release anything.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Sun or Microsoft, and I don't support the system of software patents either. I'm a software engineer and my freedom is everything to me. But you seem to have your lines confused and crossed when you criticise Sun about what they want to do with *their* property. You don't like the software patent system? Do something about it. Talk to your local government official. Support and form a group of patent defense. Talk to Richard Stallman about having revocation clauses in the GPL for those who sue on infringement. Free software is everywhere and a revocation clause would hurt.

For right or wrong, the software patent system is entirely legal in many countries. I don't like the social welfare system in the country I live in for example. It takes away my tax dollars. But it is legal. If I want to break it, I don't go about telling my neighbours to hate that other neighbour who utilises the social welfare system. I do something to get the system abolished.

Mukund

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

Mukund,

My arguments are not premature. There is an implicit patent threat written in the terms of the so-called grant, coupled with publicity that is intended to make the grant look like a great philanthropic act toward the very Open Source developers who are threatened. What other method do we have to counter deceptive publicity than what I am doing?

The way one argues for abolishment of a bad law is to cite concrete examples of abuse of the law when they are at hand.

This is not like the social welfare argument you raise. In that case, some poor people just want to live. It's more similar to having a thug on your street who walks around waving his gun at you, and promotes himself as doing a public service. He bought the gun legally, and has a proper permit. But he's no policeman, and his gun-waving clearly is a threat. Should you tell your neighbors to deplore the thug and that his publicity is a lie, and point out his bad example to others, including the legislature? It would be a good idea.

Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[SunFan]

If you don't like the CDDL, don't bitch so much and be happy with what you already have. Patents are a ball of wax unto themselves. I bet every big company out there has a thousand patents that they can pull out at any time against Linux, right now, next week, while we sleep. Just be happy they aren't so foolish.

Your agenda against Sun is wearing thin.

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

SunFan, no amount of your repetition will convince anyone that this is about the CDDL. It's about the patent grant that is actually a threat. It's deceptive. If that word is too long for you, how about "lie". Its publicity certainly was a lie. Most companies haven't told similar lies. Most companies are smart enough not to make similar threats to the one that Sun's just made.

I do what I can to fight software patents. I logged 50,000 air miles last year because the battle is on both sides of the Atlantic. Throwing the dialogue of patent blackmailers back in their face is part of that.

Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[mukund]

I wouldn't compare Sun to a thug. That'd be calling FUD. I haven't read of a single case where they have litigated offensively on software patents. And after their experiences with issues such as the Kodak case recently, I don't think they'd not have a strong opinion towards software patents. They do some good stuff such as OpenOffice, their work on GNOME and portions of Apache's software. They have released several more projects and contributed to others under open source and non-free licenses.

Unlike you and me, Sun is a publicly traded company, and so is IBM. IBM has only released a very very small portion of their patents. They register tens of times more patents than this in a year. I'd like to see them open up their entire portfolio. *I'd like to see them stop registering software patents.* IBM actually has a well reknown history of litigating on the offensive with patents. They have responsibilities towards their share-holders, who may not take it kindly to have what is accepted now as legal intellectual property, given away for nothing. Note that I'm not calling X or Y company is bad. What I'm trying to say is that change happens slowly. Sun is trying to open up to the community and yes they need to do more, but it doesn't mean they are similar to thugs any more than any other company in their markets is.

As far as the welfare system goes, I'm sure you are aware that there are several hundreds of cases where families have lots of children so that they get better revenue from benefits. Some parents don't even work to earn their living anymore as the welfare system lets them lead a comfortable life here in this country.

I don't mind if my money goes towards assisting a person recover and build his/her life. And I'd like the person to work for it.

Mukund

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

I wouldn't compare Sun to a thug.

Well, you compared them to poor people on public assistance, which is even more absurd.

They are threatening me, and my friends. That's generally going to get them called thugs.IBM presents patent problems too, and if you look back in a press archive, you can see I've been very vocal about the IBM problem too.

Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[SunFan]

If you are so bent out of shape over this, why not approach Sun about it? That would go further towards satisfying you than posting on Slashdot...but, then, you wouldn't be working to just turn people against OpenSolaris. I guess the latter provides a bigger benefit to you, personally.

Re:Premature flaming

[SunFan]

And when I say "approach Sun about it" I mean, go straight past the PR know-nothings and talk to a Sun lawyer--someone who can talk to you in complete sentences.

Re:Premature flaming

[mukund]

Bruce,

If this's something you want to argue personally against me ("you said", "I said", "so you're absurd"), then I'll stop discussing this here. I did not compare Sun or IBM to the welfare system. Please read my initial post properly.

I merely said that the software patent system is legal, just like the welfare system, even though I don't think highly of it.

Mukund

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

I made an offer of advice before the release. Indeed, a number of times. I made it through various official channels. It wasn't taken up.

In my experience, Sun listens best when you write and publish things about them.Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

Mukund,

You're the one to pick the welfare system as a metaphor of another legal thing you don't approve of. If I were out to criticize you personally, I'd use the ad-hominem fallacy, etc. Instead, I criticized your argument. And I used the word "you" because you're responsible for your argument.

Bruce

Re:Premature flaming

[rpozz]

Bruce, considering you work in IP insurance, don't you think it's irresponsible of you to post on this story, given your very obvious bias?

And, lets face it.. with the current screwed up patent/IP system, SCO has proved just about anybody can try and take legal action against Linux. However, I seriously doubt that at this point in time either MS,Sun,IBM or HP will try and pull the same shit SCO did. It's obviously a kamikazee aproach.

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

I spoke with a vice-president.

Re:Premature flaming

[SunFan]

All we can do, then, is wait. With everything I've read over the past month or so, I really don't think Sun intends to be misleading. They spent five years working towards OpenSolaris, aquiring the IP needed for it. They are walking a tightrope with lawyers shaking both ends, and, so far, they've managed to get 99% of the way to shipping an open system. This entire Slashdot discussion is speculation about details, about what-ifs, about things that Sun hasn't even showed signs of doing. Let's give them a few weeks to respond.

Re:Premature flaming

[Bruce Perens]

I really don't think Sun intends to be misleading.

I wish I could believe that. I was careful to confirm that the patent grant was CDDL-specific. We already know that. It may indeed be Solaris-specific or specific to folks who assign their copyrights to Sun, that is the sort of detail we have yet to find out.

If Sun folks did not wish to be deceptive, they would not have promoted it as a bigger deal than the IBM grant, which really does apply to almost all Open Source projects.

Bruce

Microsoft? What about SCO?

[PornMaster]

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.

ping

[Doc Ruby]

So GPL is a license for Free/Open Source Software, and CDDL/Eclipse are licenses for submarines.

You work for suns marketing dept, right?

[argoff]

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.

I worry about this

[strider44]

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 from "leaking"

[bmetz]

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.

Re:OSS Develeopers should abandon Linux for Solari

[SunFan]

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.

Uhh, it is Sun that is Jealous

[argoff]

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.

Re: Propaganda

[vettemph]

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.

Re:Ob. grammar nazi post

[RollingThunder]

I don't know, there's some appeal to dishing out justice against those who abuse IP portfolios.....

Overall Good Move for Sun

[The_Dougster]

There has been a lot of heresay about Solaris being technically superior to Linux, and in some cases this is warranted, but for the most part I would tend to disagree.

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.

Re:Overall Good Move for Sun

[Bruce Perens]

Doug,

The only fellow who tried to establish technical superiority of Solaris that I've heard of so far was not personally up to the task.

I am sure they have some stuff that's better in Solaris, for now, and Linux has some stuff that's better. Two years from now, if Sun and its buddies do not mount a patent attack, that will not be true. Linux will have completely overtaken Solaris. And that's why I fear the attack will happen.

Bruce

The end for Sun is near

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:The end for Sun is near

[Xyrus]

"Just goes to show, when a company is about to go under, they at least go down fighting."
^^^^^^^^

Uh, I think misspelled whining. :)

~X~

Re:The end for Sun is near

[Tpenta]

I'd be interested to know exactly which lawsuits you are referring to that Sun is "whipping out"?

Tp.

Re:The end for Sun is near

[Tpenta]

Hmmm, no response, could it possibly be that there aren't any?

Tp.

RMS vs Sun vs Mozilla.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Convenient... very convenient

[spectecjr]

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.

Re:Microsoft's Secret Weapon?

[ignorant_newbie]

> because Solaris is a technically superior
> operating system

What makes you say this? do you have actual examples of how solaris is superior to linux ?

as far as i can tell, the main advantage of solaris was that it ran on sun's big-ass servers. Now that we can get the same performance out of a 2-way AMD64 machine as out of 64-way e10k this doesn't matter anymore.

Re:The EPL doesn't stop IBM's donation from "leaki

[Bruce Perens]

Bmetz: agreed, but be sure not to confuse the IBM patent license from the Eclipse copyright license. This is essentially a patent matter, as we could care less what Sun does with their code if they don't want to be good sharing partners, but we have to care about their patents.

Thanks

Bruce

Sun is a victim of the OS movement

[yajacuk]

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.

They can try....

[raehl]

But do they have a license to ill?

Without that, I don't think they stand much of a chance.

BZZZT! ERROR!

[Steeltoe]

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.

Re:BZZZT! ERROR!

[SunFan]

Seeing your nick, you're a troll. This is not for you, but for those you might mislead.

Appreciate that my bias isn't hidden. Are you so aware of people posting here who are HP fans or IBM fans or Microsoft fans? You really need to think about this, because there is a FUD storm surrounding OpenSolaris, right now.

OpenSolaris IS VIRAL ...

[quarkscat]

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 ...

uncalled for

[sacrilicious]

I bet you do; if OpenSolaris succeeds, it's going to break your $300/hour rice bowl. (Or is that the $5300/talk rice bowl?) However you figure it, you have a huge economic interest in the failure of OpenSolaris...

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.

Re:uncalled for

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:uncalled for

[SunFan]

What a petty and misguided attack on Bruce.

No, it wasn't a petty attack at all. Bruce has an agenda against Sun, evidenced by his comments today and by his prior employment with HP (a Sun foe). Slashdot needs to start putting less weight on his opinions in any thread concerning Sun.

Open Source Exclusion

[tomhath]

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.

No such paragraph?

[WebMink]

> 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.

Re:No such paragraph?

[Bruce Perens]

Sun deleted exhibit A entirely. That exhibit is present with Mozilla's distributed products.

Bruce

Re:No such paragraph?

[WebMink]

But the deletion of 'exhibit A' is explained in the detailed rationale thus:

This section is based on Sections 3.3 and 3.5 of the MPL, though the form by which a Contributor identifies Modifications is no longer specified. References to Exhibit A were also removed. This was done because the requirements of the MPL seemed overly specific and burdensome; even the Mozilla community doesn't seem to consistently adhere to this practice. Since failure to follow requirements of the license can have significant legal repercussions, it seemed best to be pragmatic and leave the details of how notice is provided to the community and its developers. We note that our requirement is similar to that of other open source licenses (e.g., CPL, OSL).

In other words, the change is not about preventing code mingling or license changing. Multiple-licensing is actually left to the governance of the open source project in question, just like it actually is with the MPL. Exhibit A doesn't create a need for the original developer to multiple-license nor a right for downstream developers to vary the license the original developer uses. Even if it had been left intact, it would not have placed a duty on Sun to offer multiple licenses (which they still could in a separate contributor agreement), nor would it have given you or anyone else the right to vary the license after the fact.

Thus I'd assert that your original claim ( "The mozilla license has a paragraph that says: you can convert this license to the GPL and mix it with GPL software legally.") is a misreading and that Sun hasn't done the damage you assert (at least not here).

Re:No such paragraph?

[Bruce Perens]

Simon,

This was done because the requirements of the MPL seemed overly specific and burdensome

"Burdensome" means "we didn't want to do it". Had they wanted to leave the decision up to the individual Open Source project (presumably OpenSolaris), they would have left that appendix in place in skeletal form. I've never heard of anyone on the Mozilla project who considers that appendix to be burdensome.

Even the Mozilla community doesn't seem to consistently adhere to this practice.

It's critical that they do adhere to this practice, or otherwise the Gecko renderer could not be included in GNOME. That's the first one I thought of, no doubt there are other relationships like that which must be maintained through dual-licensing.

Thanks

Bruce

So, would we be better off without OpenSolaris?

[Anppa]

No free Solaris for those who want it, and Sun would still have its patents for all kinds of suing?

will Sun be forced to change it again?

[zogger]

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.

Re:OSS Develeopers should abandon Linux for Solari

[krakrjak]

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?

Wacky Idea...

[IllogicalStudent]

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?

Re:Microsoft's Secret Weapon?

[bob beta]

Huh?

Same performance?

Perhaps for certain tasks, i.e. possibly certain 'ivory tower' computational benchmarks.

IP insurance

[Bruce Perens]

I serve on the board of Open Source Risk Management and collect no salary. The company has graciously paid for some airline tickets in order for me to lobby against European software patenting, etc. They have never attempted to set my agenda. They are useful to the Free Software community as an aggregator of defense services. They have an incentive to protect Open Source developers from legal claims that could effect OSRM's customers. In other words, they are one of the few companies that we can really count as being on our side in the software patent fight. Why wouldn't I help them?

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

danger

[sad_]

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...

sun and open source

[torrents]

sun needs to embrace open source quickly and decisively if they want to survive and gain a broader base of support from developers.