Slashdot Mirror
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."
Reducing the license count is good, but put those apps under the BSD license instead. That way folks can use your program without their hands being tied. They can even make a product out of it, make some money, and feed changes/improvements back into the program. I've had folks send in contributions to PMD and say that if it was GPL'd they wouldn't be contributing their code.
And the fact that Compuware wraps PMD and calls it OptimalAdvisor? More power to them! Maybe they'll contribute a bug fix or two, and maybe I'll sell a couple more copies of the book. A rising tide, as it were...
The Army reading list
Why? The article doesn't explain WHY it would be good for IBM and Sun to switch their licenses. To me, it seems like Fink is just trying to garner some positive attention to HP, which has been looked upon negatively for some time in the technical community.
On another note, did anyone else find it ironic that he is trying to push the ideals of software freedom of creativty and expression...by locking everyone under the same license?
This seems like meaningless posturing for positive HP market spin. I don't see why two other companies would listen to the head of HP, when they haven't really been listening to the community itself for years.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Why not the poor old LGPL? Everyone forgets about this little guy when the GPL vs BSD flamewars erupt. With LGPL you can make sure that no one leeches your code while allowing others to build commercial apps around it ands feed their children or whatever...
I guess this means that HP will distribute HPUX under the GPL from now on! Wooo Hooo!
(NOT!)
-Matt
I don't get this one though. I write open source software so people can use it. "leaching" is what they're doing by nature.
;-)]
I mean how many Linux users really contribute back to the Kernel?
People used to be afraid of companies running off and locking people buying HW to a given OS.
Now because most OSS is written by kids [e.g. 25] they're just afraid of being left behind and not noticed.
The actual motives for a GPL or BSD or whatever license rarely has to do with the original goals.
Becase, really, if you want code to be just out there for folk to use you could make it public domain [like I do
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Since we're giving a laundry list of companies that have invented their own licenses to ensure their code can't be used by open source projects under the GPL (most notably Linux), why not mention Apple and their APSL.
After all, the APSL has no advantages over the GPL or the LGPL, except that (from Apple's point of view) it prevents Linux from using the goodies in Darwin (such as the fast-booting Launchd).
Can we please refer to Open Source either using the phrase "Open Source" or with the abbreviation "OSS"?? The "OS" usually stands for "Operating System".
So the headline of this article read to me like "HP calls for Sun and IBM to remove Operating System licenses" which is completely different from what the article was about.
</soapbox>
I guess the hardest part of journalism school is learning to talk out of ones ass.
For those who, like this reporter, don't know: Any material must be under copyright for the GPL to apply.
J.T.F.C.
-Peter
But does NOTHING to prohibit proprietarization. People can USE your programs under the GPL all they want- they don't have their hands tied. It's when they modify it that they might, and I say MIGHT have their hands tied. As far as I'm concerned, they can have their hands tied in that regard- namely if you use this as the base for your stuff, you need to be able to give your stuff back. That's the price of admission- pure and simple.
Sadly so many BSD advocates just don't get this concept. It's not that your hands are tied per se, it's that you can't just arbitrarily go and reuse the code without paying up by way of your sharing. In my book this is just fine- and it's how most of the work I do in the FOSS world is licensed- either GPL or LGPL.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Well, it happens that not everyone is convinced that they should give up as much control as Our Fatherly Leader Richard Stallman thinks they should. That's why many people choose a BSD or MIT style Open Source license. In many ways, the GPL cuts its own throat by not recognizing that not everyone is a diehard socialist. In other words, the GPL has too much ideology in it for some people. Thus, they can maintain some control over their code while allowing others to benefit from its openness, by using a BSD type license. In other news, HP would like Sun and IBM to GPL their intellectual property because HP no longer does R and D...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Ok, now we have HP taking pot shots at SUN and IBM.
/has/ given to the community, but in no way as much as IBM and SUN. NFS? SUN OpenOffice? SUN, Solaris 10? SUN (let's see HP open-source HPUX).
Yes, HP
Before HP opens its yap, I want to see the source for HPUX, and CDE.
You know, that OS where you can't use local variables named "u" in kernel code (just like 30 year old Unix).
But NOOO - HP feels they must shoot at IBM and SUN for the (Open Source approved) LICENSE -- AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY CLAPPED?!?!?
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Asking Sun to GPL SOlaris will never fly. Why? Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, as Solaris is basically an System V release, and we know how SCO feels about GPL, Linux, and so called leaking of SVRx code into Linux. Sun is a licencee, and if they did release the kernel code, they would be hooped. Same goes for HP with HP-UX, and IBM with AIX. Until the SVR code is GPL'd, no Unix based on SVR will every be GPL'd, regardless of who actually owns the copyright to the code.
It's sad to see millions and millions of lines of code rotting in it's own hell even though it is free - If everything was GPL, just think how much OpenSolaris and Linux could benefit from each other. But now as the state of affairs is - no one can benefit from the humongous efforts already taken by the other - every one has to reinvent his own wheel.
HP have not contributed as much source as the other companies, but HP is a major supporter abd helper of Linux and other open source projects. For example, they by a large margin sell and support the most Linux based servers of all vendors.
Their use is certainly not parasitic, you are clueless there, but you are partly right about the contribution.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that a vice president of HP can be so stupid, or the fact that he got applauded for his stupidity. The former doesn't know what Free Software but insists on making a speech about it, and the latter are willing to applaud any praise of the GPL no matter how erroneous that praise might be.
It's one thing to want to limit the number of approved Open Source licenses. I may disagree with it, but I understand the motive. I can also understand his urging his competitors to use the more popular Open Source licenses instead of their own (even though HP still insists on proprietary for most of its software).
But when he says that the GPL is not copyrighted, he is being stupid. EVERY Free Software and Open Source license is copyrighted! Even the sacred and immaculately conceived GPL! For a LWCE keynote speaker to make such a fundamental blunder on the nature of Free Software is scandalous.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
He has a good point. It seems like every big company going into OSS make up their own license for no particular reason. Incompatible with every other OSS license out there of course.
Okay, companies which have released as much OSS software as IBM and Sun should listen to HP because... why?
I'm sure the Eclipse people and the OpenSolaris project, among many others, have been waiting with great anxiety for HP's opinion of what they are doing. "Hey guys, stop everything! Martin Fink says we're using the wrong license!"
Even if the guy has a point, it takes some gall for HP to tell these other companies much of anything about how to conduct their OSS business.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga