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

A lot of hot air

[j1mmy]

HP is moving more and more towards the consumer desktop market. Is this guy even going to have a job next week?

(first post?)

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/

[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!"

And then...

[LuciferBlack]

"IBM and SUN then asked HP to price printer supplies at a reasonable cost which drew and even bigger round of applause..."

oh noes

[cptbarkey]

please sir, make your product less effective then mine. please?

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...

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.

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.

Pot calling Kettle...

[knarfling]

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

My company that just purchased 3 computers from HP. There was a total of 5 dual core CPUs. We had to purchase 10 licences for HP-UX 11.11. Utilities that were an extra charge had to be purchased on a per CPU basis as well. A utility that cost $300 ended up costing $3000 even if it was only used on one machine. And they have the nerve to tell other companies to make their licences free???

HP, if you want others to change their licences, lead by example.

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:Pot calling Kettle...

[ak3ldama]

Sun Solaris 10 is also based on SVR4. But you probably knew that.

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>

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