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

s/GPL/BSD/

[tcopeland]

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...

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[paitre]

Except that there are a lot of folks that don't -want- their OSS work to be commercialized by anyone else, if they're not going to do it themselves.

The BSD is a great license, but that is actually a -weakness-, IMO - that anyone can take BSD code, make a new product out of it, and not have to release those changes back to the community.

It's called leeching.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[cnettel]

It's called free as in "no strings attached".

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[AKAImBatman]

The BSD is a great license, but [the ability to commercialize] is actually a -weakness-

No, it's not a weekness any more than the GPL's requirement to provide source code is. Choose the right license for what you want to do, and you'll have no problems. For example, the Apache project works on the idea that providing a common code base instead of reinventing the wheel at 500 different companies is a good thing. Thus they provide code (donated by many of those same companies!) under the BSD license specifically so the software *can* be commercialized.

In the case of Linux, control over the source code is a more important feature than not reinventing the wheel. Thus it's under the GPL license.

You people need to wake up and remember the programmer's addage, "Use the right tool for the right job!"

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[stienman]

It's called leeching.

As opposed to the GPL's form of forced reverse leeching?

Using the GPL is like saying, "If you don't follow my rules, you can't use my tools."

That's fine. I have no problem with authors choosing whatever license they want.

I would argue that *more* freedom comes to the user with software licensed under the BSD license. I have fewer restrictions when I choose BSD licensed software.

When I choose to license software under BSD, I am choosing to allow my users greater freedom than the GPL provides.

My community contributed software is a gift of my time and resources. I feel that gifts should come without strings and without expectations.

-Adam

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[Decameron81]

"It's called free as in "working for the Man for free.", or "I'm an idiot." for short."

It's called free as in "not only you can make choices, but everyone else too". And you look like someone who has a hard time accepting that kind of freedom.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[arkanes]

While I'm sure the "spite" aspect plays a role, the main motivation of the GPL is actually something quite different. The freedom being protected in the GPL is the freedom of the user, not of the programmer. The point is to ensure that software users can change, modify, fix, or audit the software they run without onerous commercial licensing. That sort of freedom is what the GPL considers important and thats what it is designed the protect. The BSD license doesn't offer that protection, and therefor to people who think the freedom of software users should be protected, it's insufficent. This is political, to the extent that "People have the right to be empowered" is political.

The secondary purpose is to create a culture of sharing. You could view it sort of as the difference between a potluck and a soup kitchen.

Why

[kevin_conaway]

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?

Re:Why

[hackstraw]

The article doesn't explain WHY it would be good for IBM and Sun to switch their licenses.

Nor why HP doesn't think its good for themselves either. From http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/1207 9_div/12079_div.HTML:

The HP-UX 11i Operating System license provides the right to use the software as described in these QuickSpecs, and is furnished under the licensing of Hewlett-Packard's Standard Terms and Conditions. Licenses for prior versions must be updated to this version either through the purchase of a Service Agreement that includes the rights-to-use new versions, or through the purchase of Update Licenses.

HP-UX 11i Operating Environment Per-Processor License, purchase separately: B9089AC
HP-UX 11i Enterprise Operating Environment, purchase separately from hardware: B9091AC
HP-UX 11i Enterprise to M/C OE upgrade Per-Processor License: B9094AC
HP-UX 11i Mission-Critical OE Per-Processor License, purchase separately: B9093AC

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?

Yes, I did. I also agree with another poster that suggested maybe the BSD license vs. GPL. The GPL license is not very attractive to many commercial software companies, and may also conflict with other contracts that they are already bound to. In general, the BSD license is much more appealing to commercial endeavors. The BSD TCI/IP stack should be a sufficient example.

*rolls eyes*

[Slime-dogg]

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.

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/

[ccbailey]

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...

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/

[tomstdenis]

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

OSS, not OS

[Jim Hall]

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>

Hosre Crap-ola de Jur

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

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...

This just pisses me off!

[ratboy666]

Ok, now we have HP taking pot shots at SUN and IBM.

Yes, HP /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).

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

Sun won't GPL Solaris

[olivercromwell]

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.