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.'"
How am I supposed to RTFA when the summary alone fills my entire browser window!
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...
Summary: There is a bug in the draft of the licence. With any luck it will be fixed when the licence is released.
This licensing/contract cr*p has become has gone too far.
Where is the ironic tag when you need it.
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.
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.
Get a free Mac Mini
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?
The EPL doesn't stop IBM's donation of the original Eclipse source from "leaking" into competitor's products. In fact, the EPL has enabled many vendors to build products which directly compete against IBM's offerings. It is also important to note that in the case of Eclipse there is an independent non-profit organization which develops the code -- hence the E in EPL.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
It 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
Bruce Perens.
There is nothing wrong with BSD license. It's quite simply a free license. Perhaps copycenter describes BSDL best :
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.