Sun Considering GPL For OpenSolaris

narramissic writes, "At an event today to formally open-source Java, Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's president and CEO, and Rich Green, the company's senior VP of software had an exchange in which Schwartz put Green on the spot about using GPL for OpenSolaris: 'Are you averse to changing the license, Rich Green?' Schwartz asked. 'Certainly not,' Green responded, prompting the Sun CEO to fire back in a half-joking manner: 'Will you GPL Solaris, Mr. Green?' 'We will take a close look at it,' Green said, adding that it was possible that the familiarity and comfort level many developers have with the GPL may result in Sun adopting it for OpenSolaris." Another note about Sun's decision to use the GPL for Java comes from reader squiggleslash, who writes: "According to Jonathan Schwartz, the decision of Novell and Microsoft to '(suggest) that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid' is what prompted Sun to finally come down on using the GPL for Java. So I guess every cloud has a silver lining."

Comments

Re:Money Pressure

[DAldredge]

Other than their keyboard and mouse operations all Microsoft hardware operations operate in the red.

More cool stuff in Solaris?

[Kadin2048]

This is just my understanding, but Darwin doesn't have nearly as many 'interesting' features that don't already exist in Linux. There is some neat Solaris-only stuff that people have wanted to bring into Linux for a while, but have not been able to because of licensing problems, and the work it would take to clean-room it.

The thing that I always hear talk about is dtrace (currently CDL, and tightly integrated with the Solaris kernel), but looking at the WP article on it, apparently it's been partially brought over to BSD and OS X. Then there are also containers and that "self-healing" fault-isolation system, which I don't pretend to understand.

Perhaps there are just as many cool, compelling features in Darwin that aren't talked about, and deserve being shared with Linux and other OSes ... but I've definitely not heard as much 'buzz' about them as you hear about some particular features of Solaris that are supposedly very neat.

Re:Another dumb move

[xzvf]

Sun does two things well. Rock solid hardware and excellent service. GPLing Solaris and Java allows them to limit resources spend on software development. In addition, GPL compatible Solaris and Linux will blur the lines between the OS as they adopt each other's best features. Linux and Solaris might become binary compatible. Sun can focus on selling hardware and services.

Which *version* of the GPL

[YA_Python_dev]

More interesting than this, IMHO, is to note that for Java they choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".

This is what the Java FAQ says about it:

Q: What about GPL v3? Have you considered using that license?
A: While Sun has been working with the Free Software Foundation as an active participant in the development and review of the GPL v3 license, this license is not yet complete. It is Sun's strong desire to complete the open sourcing of its Java technology implementations in a timely manner, so we made the decision to use an existing, established license paradigm rather than wait for GPL v3 to be completed. Using GPL v2 does not indicate anything negative about GPL v3. Sun continues to be very actively and positively involved in this new license's development.

And, from this InfoQ article about the GPLed Java:

GPLv3 was not chosen since it is not finished yet, but when asked if Sun will move to GPLv3 an official said "at this point we don't know what the final license will be."

Re:Which *version* of the GPL

[Kjella]

It's not really that big a deal when a company decides to use GPLv2 only for a big product. That basicly means "GPLv3 isn't out yet, we'll consider it when it is." They have the power to relicense Java to GPLv3 with the stroke of a pen. I guess it still remains to be seen how they'll allow contributions, but it needn't be a problem in the future either.

That is a sane position for a company. The trouble comes when you need to relicense hundreds if not thousands of small contributions, many of which you can't get hold of (left the project, moved, deceased or otherwise). Not to mention they all have to agree, but that's another issue. In that sense, "GPLv2 or later" is an in advance grant of license based on good faith in the FSF.

But if you're quite certain you'll be around to evaluate it, why license it now? They can just as easily do it when it's available for legal review. If you find an old source file from this GPLv2'd Java, I think you'll find it quite easy to find a contact address for Sun, Inc. and it'd probably be well known if they "retroactively" licensed old Java versions to be GPLv3 as well.

Seriously, if I was a lawyer and someone wanted to release something under a license that wasn't written yet, I'd balk too. Licensing it under the GPLv3 currently requires good faith. If you look at it with a lawyer's eyes, which usually translated to "How screwed could we get?", clearly it's better to wait and see.

Re:That would be awesome!

[johansalk]

No it won't, for the simple reason that Linus is "a bastard, and proud of it!". Just google "linus" and "solaris" and see how dismissive he is of it, calling it "a joke", just like he's been dismissive of the BSDs.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual consoles, better pcfs, USB drivers, other drivers, ...

Re:ZFS

[volsung]

Yeah, I've been playing with Nexenta and was pretty impressed by the layout (and ZFS of course), but had a rough time figuring out what hardware was detected, how drivers are loaded, and so on.

As for the Linux distros, I had to start thinking about them as branches in a family tree, rather than as one OS. There is the Debian lineage, the RedHat/Fedora lineage, the Gentoo lineage, ....

Re:GPL DTrace for teh win!

[Anonymous Coward]

a) OpenSolaris is not 100% open - You still need binary blobs to build and run the OS. Not all drivers are open source.
b) While Solaris may be carrier grade and it certainly is rock solid and scalable (although slower than Linux) on Sun hardware, if I had to build an OS for embedded hardware or if I had to use my Desktop/Laptop fully, I would go with Linux - it's been there and done that.
c) If I were to use a OS on x86/64 hardware without having to pay a dime for support, Linux is the best choice - Linux community is very friendly and issues do get sorted out most of the times. Try visiting OpenSolaris community and see how much % of user problems are ever answered / resolved.
d) Linux user land APIs have rarely if ever been changed - kernel api stability is nonsense for a evolving OS.
e) Software availability - much more OSS and commercial software is available and supported on Linux compared to Solaris on x86
f) If I am a Developer wishing to contribute - it's way easier to do so with Linux than OpenSolaris (Try submitting a patch to Opensolaris)

I can go on but the point is OpenSolaris is not the panacea - nor is Linux but it's close and I have hopes.

Re:Money Pressure

[ak3ldama]

You have to read between some of the lines here. Schwartz has said (i'm not sure if it was his blog or some videos they put up recently) that through open sourcing Solaris, they have opened the doors for more potential customers. He says they are now seeing licenses purchased for boxes that came from IBM, HP, Dell etc. My view is that these customers would have been too scared to go with Solaris unless they open sourced it, because in the past Sun had abandoned Solaris on x86.