Slashdot Mirror
Sun Considers dual-sourcing Solaris Under GPL3
foorilious writes "In his blog, Sun Microsystem's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz discusses the possibility of dual-licensing Solaris (and perhaps the rest of their software suite) under GPLv3, in addition to the CDDL, which is the OSI-approved license under which these products are already available, but generally considered to be incompatible with the GPL at some level.
Though this could mean an opening of the floodgates to a lot of sharing between Linux and Solaris (among other things), it's worth mentioning that Schwartz has speculated on exciting things in the past (such as porting Solaris to IBM's Power) that we subsequently never heard another thing about."
I thought Linux wasn't going to go for GPL3, so how exactly would that sharing work?
Jerry
http://www.networkstrike.com/
Though this could mean an opening of the floodgates to a lot of sharing between Linux and Solaris
Linus already said that Linux is not now, and will not in the near future, be released under GPLv3. And since GPLv3 is not reverse compatible with GPLv2 (it has more restrictions), this won't happen.
One of the least discussed but largest changes in GPL3 is the explicit mention of patents and how patents (if found to be violated) would effect the work as a whole. This is similar to the IBM Public License and is one of those things that I'd imagine would give a corporate lawyer warm fuzzies. Sun and others may find this change so compelling that they'd be willing to give more attention to the GPL3 than the GPL2, which strengthens it further (since these companies want the flow of information to go both).
http://www.blastware.org/
- Linux zealots abandon their "everything about Solaris sucks and I'll never use it" dogma, or
- Mac zealots abandon their "Intel processors suck and I'll never use one" dogma?
The Mac people are taking an early lead, but anything can happen.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
...it's worth mentioning that Schwartz has speculated on exciting things in the past (such as porting Solaris to IBM's Power) that we subsequently never heard another thing about.
You can find out if you just use the Schwartz - trust your feelings, let go.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
How much of a cachet does Solaris have and how will Sun attempt to capitalize on any cachet Solaris does have, especially on dual cores? Is going Open Source with GPL v3 an attempt to move into Linux territory and sell services while trying to maintain sales of their high priced hardware?
I downloaded Sol 10 looking forward to doing a dual install with Ubuntu on a Athlon 3800+ workstation, but stupidly bought a SATA drive which Solaris doesn't support. So I'll have to go back to an ide drive to do the install.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
If Linux dont want do comply with openness there is always s.b. who will. This error from Linus is maybe the chance solaris needs to grab the initiative and mindshare of programmers.
Anyone doing any kind of scientific computing, which is a large portion of their customer base. They have been losing that customer base to Linux, which hurts their sales in more ways than one.
You might also care about Solaris if you want to use any of their excellent hardware. If they GPL'd Solaris, no only could you use it without practical and moral problems, you could also do a much better job of porting other free software.
GPL'd Solaris would be a great gift. Don't look it too hard in the mouth.
GPL Java, for crying out loud.
The magic of cross licensing may prevent that. If Sun GPL's Solaris, you can be sure they will do everything in their power to get a free Java out.
Take what it gives and make what it won't.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
We have GNU/Linux.
We have GNU/*BSD.
Does this mean that GNU/Solaris is surely to come?
If you want "GPL Java", why not help out with GNU Classpath. Progress has been nothing short of spectacular in recent months, and more volunteers are always welcome.
There are many open source Java implementations available, even if they're not derived from Sun's.
There are SableVM, JamVM, GCJ, and many others. Along with GNU Classpath and Jikes, you've got a rather complete J2SE implementation available to you. GCJ can compile to native code on certain platforms. Even with all the talk about JIT compiled code potentially being faster than native binaries (due to runtime optimizations and so forth), many people have found that code compiled with GCJ is far faster than when executed under a Java VM.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Please note people: This is a company. That means they make money. And they do it in the classic sense which means this type of company usually gets the creeps when hearing stuff like "go FOSS" or "rely on FOSS". CEOs freak out regularly when these terms come up.
If SUN plans an OSS strategy they are certainly NOT going to GPL their powerhorse Java. Solaris is nearly just as impressive from a technical standpoint. It's probably that Solaris doesn't have the numbers attached to it SUN would like to see. So they probably guess it could prove itself as OSS, since Linux is winning in the custom Unix market at all fronts.
If x86 Solaris would go GPL that would be really cool. I'd actually give it a try.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The GPLv3 is still in draft form. It doesn't actually exist yet. The version on the FSF webpage could be better classified as a "beta" release (I think that's what Stallman considers it).
It's a little early to be saying "I'm going to be using the GPLv3!" Yes, they're working on it, but it's not actually out yet. The optimistic "release" date is November of this year, with the expected release date being early 2007... It's just not ready yet!
However, thinking about the current draft and any problems you have with it is encouraged. They want comments still, there's still time to help change the final draft. Saying "I'm going to use the GPLv3!" is still premature. Wait until it's actually finished, then decide.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If Linux dont want do comply with openness
What the f*ck? GPLv2 was way more open that GPLv3 is looking to be (check it out for yourself: heres a draft analysis). Note the restrictions on (a) DRM (b) patent retaliation. While you may like what GPLv3 has to say about those things you do have to agree these are restrictions that DO NOT EXIST in GPLv2. Therefore, GPLv2 is more open and less restrictive.
Schwartz also said the only relevant OSes left today are Linux, Windows and Solaris.
Anyway, they had a PPC port of Solaris.... 10 years ago when they had Solaris 2.5.1. Why would they want to start it up again?
GNU = GNU is Now Unix
http://saveie6.com/
Well, Solaris is infinitely more valuable, for starters. "GPL Java" is a hot-button issue with people for some reason, but at the end of the day, it's just a programming language. Versus, you know, an entire modern Unix operating system.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
So, you want to remove the last shred of hope that Java may make Sun some money one of these days? ;-)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1 - Linux won't use Solaris code because there doesn't appear to be any intention of migrating to GPL3
2 - Solaris can't use Linux code because Sun wants to keep their code under a second license (CDDL), which is at some level incompatible with the GPL (a.k.a incompatible with any imported Linux code)
I applaud Sun's ideas, but I am looking forward to a Fully Open Source Java (granted, I do appreciate that alternatives from other vendors are available nevertheless).
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Back in the Solaris 5 timeframe there was a PowerPC version available. The idea was that it was going to be available on the IBM/Apple/Motorolla 'Refrence Platform'. Solaris 2.5.1 came out and it was no longer available. This must have been around 1995-1996. Since they already have some base drivers available for PowerPC it should be pretty easy to reactivate that leg of the source tree, from what I know.
I think those are the only remotely possible options at this point.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Schwartz has speculated on exciting things in the past (such as porting Solaris to IBM's Power) that we subsequently never heard another thing about." :-D
All involved in the PowerSolaris project has disapered from the surface of the world... the project clearly showed that continous Power is better than a Sparc.
--
This sig is not a sig...
The Linux kernel probably won't ever be GPL3, because the license it uses doesn't contain the forward-compatibility clause that the FSF's software does; however, all the GNU utilities (including, I believe, GCC) will be GPL3 and/or GPL2, because they have the forward-looking clause.
So really what it would allow a person to do, is produce a GNU/Solaris as opposed to GNU/Linux -- an OS that would have the Solaris kernel, wrapped in the GNU utilities, without the Linux kernel. I'm not sure if anyone would really want that, because I'm not sure that it would be compatibile with either existing Solaris or existing Linux software without rewriting, and it generally seems to be a solution looking for a problem (not unlike GNU/Hurd).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Tell me about it.
I ordered one of their new x4200 servers, because it lookes like a pretty nice piece of hardware. If it lived up to its billing, I would have ordered more too. I guess I'll never know though, because that was over 3 months ago and I still haven't seen the first one yet, so to hell with them! They're all talk and no action and I'm going to shop elsewhere. Are you listening Dell?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Will it now be better to say say just "GNU", if the kernel can be replaced by either Solaris or BSD?
Radio on your iPod
Up until Solaris 10, the first stop when commissioning a new sun box was always Sun Freeware. Sun Freeware has a collection of popular binaries in Sun's package format, things like SSH, SSL, BASH, gcc, top, gzip, etc.
Many of these utilities are covered by the GPL and Sun didn't ship them, yet most admins consider them to be vital or at least very useful. Around Solaris 10 however, Sun got with the programme and included GNU stuff with their distribution media.
So to answer your question, GNU/Solaris (meaning "a Sun system running a whole bunch of GNU stuff") has been extremely common for a long time.
If this happens, would it be the beginning of the end of the Linux kernel? Since the GNU suite would most likely want to be GPL3, and the Solaris kernel would as well, would the Linux kernel become less used?
Well said. In my view, Sun's latest FOSS lovefest has been all about releasing red herrings to try and disperse some of the momentum around existing projects.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
The main difference between BSD and GPL is that GPL obliges anyone using it to play nice with others, to give back what they do (if they choose to pass it along). This is what made GPL the most widely used free software license as it did not allow anyone to grab GPL software and turn it into something proprietary (as opposed to BSD-ish stuff) - it fostered an ecosystem where software could evolve and thrive while BSD-ish sofwtare is mostly a starting point.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
... by the community, see
l
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/power_pc/
http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh011606-story02.htm
http://www.blastware.org/
As far as I can tell the only important GPLed Unix-compatible operating system is Linux. It'd be good to have some redundancy there.
People forget that what you describe is a completely solvable problem without Sun's cooperation.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Sun is already distributing the code to Solaris (OpenSolaris) under their CDDL license.
I somewhat doubt that SCO would consider suing Sun to be a good idea, Sun holds a rather large chunk of patents relating to UNIX networking, kernels etc and I have no doubt that any case brought by SCO would result in a rather in depth analysis by Sun of SCO's position with respect to Sun's patent portfolio.
Putting you code into Public Domain would be the most open way to release your source code. The reason people like Stallman want people to release code under the GPL is so people who want to base their own code on it will have to license their code under a similar license. If they didn't do this many companies would use the source without contribuing back to the comunnity. I've heard that Stallman is also very uncompromising.
Just like Sun was going to open source Java, and like Sun was going to make an ISO and ANSI Java standard.
Sun management is a bunch of liars. At this point, you can't believe anything they say until they do it.
I'm losing more and more interest in Linux because of it's lack of enterprise features. Hell, a month and a bit ago, I could have been sound asleep in bed if I'd been using Solaris, instead of up at some ridiculous time of the morning:
d _solaris_instead_of_linux-2005-12-14
http://www.penguinpowered.org/wayne/blog/if_i_use
I'd hardly consider Fedora representative of the typical Linux distribution. Many people have reported relatively severe performance problems with it, and it often includes non-standard releases of various software. That's not new for Red Hat, however. They were the ones who included the unofficial and unsanctioned 2.96 branch of GCC with earlier products, which ended up causing massive problems for a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Fedora installation you were using wasn't actually using a native binary. They may very well have been using the bytecode interpreter included with GCC. That would explain why it ran so slow for you, even slower than with Sun's JRE.
If Fedora did the correct thing and included a native build of Eclipse, you likely would have found it to run much faster, and with better memory usage. That is indeed what I found when I used a more mature distribution (such as Ubuntu or SuSE).
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I have to admit Sun seems to have some positive swing lately. They're selling some hardware again. Their open source policy finally seems to be bringing in new customers, after years of shooting themselves in the foot with weird licenses, inconsistent marketing and plain corporate stupidity affecting all their business units.
Their strategy of the past years has been very ineffective. Java has become a multi billion industry, Sun has invested hugely in it but they have failed to cash in on it directly (I suspect they barely break even). Also it hasn't driven hardware sales that much. Their main competitor on the other hand seems to have a very succesful Java strategy. IBM is leading the way in application servers, IDEs (eclipse, rational rose) and middleware with basically the whole industry eating out of their hand, including most JCP specifications committees. On top of that they also sell the hardware & support to go with the software. IBM loves Java!
Then the whole x86 solaris thing has come a long way too (from 'hey it's free now but we support it for a fee', 'oh wait we don't do that anymore' to 'oh well lets open source the whole thing and forget about it' to finally 'hey x86 solaris is really important to us'). I mean, what do they want?
Sparc sales have been a disaster for the past years with people basically favoring IBM power and x86 with linux. They may be laughing at intel for itanium but they have one thing in common with intel: x86 is driving sales for both of them. Sun has a few next generation architectures on the shelves which no doubt they are going to try to sell. These chips had better be way better than the competition (and their mediocre current offerings) or otherwise whatever spin they put on it won't work. Personally I'm not convinced yet. Their two operating systems (solaris/linux) & two architectures (x86/sparc4 aka niagra) policy is going to continue to confuse people. Sun seems to think the combinations can coexist without affecting each others marketshare. I don't. Confused customers will look to IBM and others.
To me Sun still is a company in trouble. Maybe a few of their business units are recovering (finally) but that still leaves large parts of the company not performing very well.
Jilles
The scenarios I'm reading into your comment are:
1. Torvalds decides he hates the GPL, revokes it and switches to closed source. In this instance, everyone uses the last GPL'd version and forks the operating system.
2. Someone sues Linus for copyright infringement. While the case is bogus, Torvalds settles out of court, agreeing to no longer distribute Linux. Everyone uses the last GPL'd version and forks the operating system.
3. Someone sneaks code into the operating system that they didn't own the copyright to in the first place, and sues Torvalds. This is exactly the same scenario as would happen anyway (eg if IBM lost its lawsuit to SCO.)
While you raised a series of interesting points you also forgot some important scenarios:
4. Linus is kinapped by a group of highly trained SCO lawyer-commandos and brainwashed into becoming a fierce proponet of SCO-Unix.
5. The Bush administration abandons the war on terrorism as unwinnable, declares Linux an un-American actvity and carries Linus off to an internment camp at the bottom of a crater on the frigid plains of Vastitas Borealis on Mars.
6. Linux systems all over the world become self aware, form a huge super cluster and merge into a collosal artificial lifeform that decides expunge to all carbon based lifeforms from the face of the galaxy, starting with Humans.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What Sun is doing would be more properly called "dual licensing".
I know 3 OpenSolaris distros, dunno if there are more. http://www.gnusolaris.org/ (Nexenta OS) looks to be the most complete, as the others (BeleniX and SchilliX) have either Live CD only or Console only (at least as I understood their website when I checked). In GNU/Solaris Nexenta OS you have KDE, Gnome, XFce4, real install or live CD as you wish. Works perfect on my PC. :-)
I believe some group of ambitious folks booted the Solaris kernel (as opposed to the entire OS) on Power 4 sometime last week.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
GNU-ing Solaris is the best thing to happen to both systems. Let's compare:
Solaris
Has: Strength on good HW. Is a good, stable base for any decent server/workstation
Has: Some really neat kernel related code and apps.
Needs: Users. Needs a comunity to be an alternative for paid support. Needs to be recognised by developpers better..
Needs: More apps to chose from. There are apps that just won't run on Solaris out of the box. So you either edit source or don't use the app.
Linux
Has: Great userbase.
Has: Tons of apps.
Needs: Backup. Sun has a great reputation being a software and hardware producer. Sun's HW is really good and is now approaching mainstream by working with AMD. So plainly, good support from HW producers means HW vendors are more likely to offer alternatives to Windows.
Needs: Well Linux doesn't really need the stuff Sun/Solaris offers but it would definitely improve linux here and there
I was able to run Solaris 10 as well as Open Solaris on my ASUS K8N-DL with dual-opterons. For SATA, I've used both the WD Raptors as well as a larger capacity Seagate SATA drive (can't remember the model number of the SATA). I didn't use the Silicon Image hardware raid controller, however.
Is Jonathan Schwartz a comic book collector?
I can just see him keeping the Lighthouse apps, and the rest, in mylar polybags in a longbox in his basement, along with ten copies of the "Death of Superman" issue.
Someday, those are going to be worth MILLIONS!
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
"Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it."
Ahh Grasshopper! You miss the base point of the anthropic principle. While it could be that the difference would be so great that we would not exist, it could also be of a lesser difference that we would exist but in a different way, and would thus only see the universe differently. A simpler and more observant statement would be:
We see things the way we see them because that is the way things are.
A more factual statement would be:
We see things the way we see them because this is how they appear to be from our perspective.
The sad part is most of us usually see things as per the idiotic principle. That being:
From a incalculably limited perspective we see things as either as how we wish them to be or as how we fear they are.
Matthew