HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OS Licenses

Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that in order to help nudge Linux and open source software further into the enterprise, a vice president at Hewlett-Packard Co yesterday called on rivals IBM Corp and Sun Microsystems Inc to invalidate their open-source software licenses in favor of a free licensing model. During his keynote at the LinuxWorld Conference in San Francisco yesterday, HP's vice president of open source and NonStop Enterprise Martin Fink commended the Open Source Initiative on setting up new rules to limit the growth of open-source licenses." From the article: "He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted. Fink also called on Sun Microsystems to deprecate its Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), which applies to OpenSolaris, GlassFish and JWSDP, and to re-license Solaris 10 under the General Public License, which drew the crowd's applause."

Comments

GPL is Copyrighted too

[ikegami]

In contrast [to GPL], an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted.

In contrast? The GPL and works released undef GPL are Copyrighted too. GPL doesn't work without Copyright.

Re:GPL is Copyrighted too

[justins]

It does, actually. The derived versions must not carry the "GPL" name, though. It's a similar situation for FireFox, with it's trademark license. Basically, that phrase is there to ensure branding. Otherwise, I could create and release a different "GPL" that could effectively lock people out of some of their rights.

Every item asserted by the above paragraph is untrue. Just an FYI for the casual reader.

Anything licensed with the GPL is copyrighted

[Beolach]

"He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted.

Licensing something with the GPL does NOT remove copyright protection; quite the opposite, if it was not for copyright protection, the GPL could not make the restrictions it does: derivitive works must also be licensed with the GPL, etc. If a work is placed in the Public Domain (where it has no copyright), then anyone can do anything they want with it, with no restrictions whatsoever.

There is a lot of confusion...

[YA_Python_dev]

There is a lot of confusion around there about what exactly is open source, free, copyrighted and/or proprietary software.

I suggest to everyone to read the Free Software Definition and the FAQs about the GNU GPL.

Yeah, even if you don't like RMS read them: they are very informative!

Re:Somebody please explain OSI

[drmike0099]

What they're trying to do is make it so that the term "open source" doesn't just become another marketing term that has no actual meaning. I've seen a lot of closed source, proprietary vendors referring in their marketing to "open standards" or "open systems" trying to leech off of the open source term and get credit where they don't deserve it (and it works all too often). If you have to back up your "open source" claim with an OSI-approved license, it's harder to pull that crap.

I do agree with you though that their statement that there should be fewer OS licenses is outside of the scope of what they should be doing. Approve them or don't, realizing that they're talking about other peoples' copyrighted material that they can license however they want, but leave philosophical discussions to some other group. I agree with that stance, they just shouldn't be the ones pushing it.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[LurkerXXX]

The Apache license for 2.x is unfortunately not just a vanillay BSD license. It has some limiting stuff in it which is why OpenBSD is still using the 1.x version of Apache by default. It's got a true free license.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[merdark]

The GPL ultimately talks to the selfish in us. Remember, a BSD project can be relicensed as any other license. So in fact more people are likely to use your code since they can relicense their changed version under whatever license they want.

There is no way whatsoever that licensing under the BSD is worse than the GPL, unless of course the real reason you want to give away code is not to help others, but rather to benifit yourself.

How do you benifit yourself? You force others to put changed under YOUR license of choice. This means you get access to their changes whether they want to be nice or not, and it may also push your political agenda by forcing people to use your particular philosophy bound license.

Then, there is always the spitefullness aspect of the GPL. "If *I* can't make money off the code, you sure as hell won't either!"

So what is your motive? Greed, Power, or Spitefullness?

Re:Pot calling Kettle...

[Ngwenya]

ObDisc: I work for HP, speaking here in a personal capacity, blah, blah, blah...

They have some nerve telling other companies to give out free licencing.

Be fair. Martin was simply saying that if IBM/Sun/HP/whoever is going to release software under a free license, then it would be preferable to release under a single, well known license - the GPL. HP's techies and lawyers tend to agree (in as much as techies ever agree about anything) that the GPL is the best way to give stuff to the free software community while protecting HP's intellectual investments. In other words, it will only give away stuff in the knowledge that some leech won't just take it and make the code non-free. And HP has released a lot of code under the GPL.

So he wasn't saying that Sun should open up everything including Java, or that IBM should free up AIX/Tivoli/etc or such things: just that the proliferation of licenses adds to market confusion.

Lastly, HP can't just open up HP-UX without a huge amount of work; there is code in there which is licensed under arrangements incompatible with the GPL. Case in point: HP licenses the SVR4 codebase, and I believe there is some ongoing litigation involving the contract conditions around that. Can't quite remember the company's name...

Scoff? Scold? Squelch?

--Ng

Re:OSS, not OS

[Luke-Jr]

Or, rather, how about using the adjective free which correctly describes the licensing terms? Technically, "open" would simply mean you can see the code-- not necessarily that you can modify or share it.

Also, note that OSS is the Open Sound System.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[belroth]

There is no moral rule, nor law, nor nothing that says you can't keep your modifications to yourself... only the GPL.

The GPL doesn't stop you keeping your modifications to yourself - if you don't distribute them.