Slashdot Mirror
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."
Remember, SUN makes money on hardware.
Novell and Microsoft do not.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Sorry for the fanboyish response, but I think releaseing various parts of Open Solaris under the GNU license would lead to some great developments. As I understand it, that would enable a lot of features of the Solaris kernel to be imported into Linux and vice-versa.
;)
Of course, there'd be a problem with that whole "gnu's NOT unix" thing...
This could be a bigger boon than a lot of people realize. The licensing differences between Solaris and Linux are one of several factors slowing them from adopting ideas and code from one another. OpenSolaris users could benefit from ease of importing more cutting edge features from Linux. Linux could benefit by having access to some of the cleaner implementation ideas from Solaris. I've felt for some time that much of what holds linux back is the unwillingness to adopt newer and better features out of a fear that a given distribution will be less compatible with others and because Linux is trying to wear many hats. Too many decisions are made to benefit its use as a server or make it easier to use on a portable, while leaving it behind others for a workstation.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
It certainly removes one barrier. But look at Darwin. It's open source, but who else but a handful of people outside of Apple are working on it? So the point is not to knock the potential change. The point is will developers flock to Solaris as a result of this? Slowly but surely or not fast enough?
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. If you believe that, want to buy some old dot com stocks I traded for some swamp land a few years back? Honest, ill give you a great deal!
A company the size of Sun does not move that quickly, especially so far as legal matters go. Besides, there has been talk of GPLing Java before Christmas for months.
Sun saw a chance to take a shot at Microsoft/Novell and they took it. Can't say I fault them, but its fairly obviously a lie.
Thanks Sun, that would be great if OpenSolaris became available under the GPL along with Java. That would offer another very good open alternative to Linux. Something backed by Sun would be really good if Microsoft keeps up it's patent-FUD.
Did I wake up in some alternate universe or something, though? I mean, Novell sold the community out and now Sun is adopting the GPL?
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
To me this sounds like a simple off-hand comment and unlikely to happen.
That said, can someone who is more familiar with the whole thing tell me: did has opening Solaris had much of an effect at all in any way? Has it stopped market share loss? Increased market share? Increased software availability? Has anything really changed?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Wow, if that ever happened, wouldn't it be ironic - I can imagine a future where linux has been effectively preempted by the mega corporations, while Solaris is fully GPL'd and becomes the default first choice for the typical savvy unix admin.
In any case, I'll be getting to know Solaris 10 better in the coming months, but the GPL would just put it over the top.
Oh lordy, then what's the RMS fan club going to bitch about?
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.
... 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.
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
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
I'd imagine from selling computers, the same as they've always done. I don't think OpenSolaris is a profit center for them now, so GPL'ing it shouldn't cost them any profits (at least, not directly).
GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it.
Ever hear of an a little OS called Linux? It's done fairly well under the GPL...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Earth to NineNine: they haven't charged for Solaris or Java all along. They are a services and hardware company. If Solaris technologies move to Linux, then Sun has only to be sure that their hardware is the best supported Linux product to make a go of it. This is smart, good business and it's about time Sun figured that out. OpenSolaris won't be closed because for now it's got a lead on SPARC hardware as well as some features which are unique to Sun but over time it is obvious to all but the most clueless that Linux is where the community is putting the majority of effort and one would have to be a complete cluebie not to see that it is not slowing down or conceding defeat on any front.
...Steve
If it were released under the GPL, it could be imported into the Linux kernel.
I think this is awesome.
I can't decide whether Sun has balls of spent Uranium or if they're just really disparate. Possibly both. But I really like this, and I hope their services and hardware businesses benefit accordingly.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
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:
And, from this InfoQ article about the GPLed Java:
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Wrong thread?
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
I support Sun GPLing Java and possible OpenSolaris. If I ever buy a rack server, I will make sure it's a Sun model.
``Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.''
With all the complaints about the Java community process being slow and bureaucratic, and the free Java implementations lagging behind in features, I think having a good, open source Java implementation is a Good Thing in it's own right.
Also, I don't know what you mean by the model of contribution for Java not being as easily understood as the OS world. It's not like there aren't any successful open source programming language implementations yet.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Surely you're toking, mister Nineman.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Not to mention the fact that, although it is true that Sun is gradually open sourcing all of its software, most of what Sun makes it enterprise software. What company is really going to use Sun's RFID software to run a warehouse floor, or use Sun's identity management software to manage authentication and access control for an entire enterprise, and not get a support contract from Sun? Open sourcing this type of stuff probably doesn't impact Sun's sales negatively one iota. Open sourcing Java may be riskier, but I'm curious to see how it really pans out.
Breakfast served all day!
Sun has made some of the worst strategic decisions in the IT industry for the past decade or so. Why would GPL'ing their main products be any better? Where are they going to make money? Bake sales? Are they going to pay their people with warm fuzzy feelings? Yeah, Sun may do it. But I'm betting it'll kill them long term. In fact, now may be a good time to short the stock, and expect the payoff to be complete in about 5 years.
Sun will make money exactly the same way they do now - hardware sales and support contract.
Solaris has never been a significant revenue stream for Sun. Heck, they haven't even had a nominal charge on it for years.
GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it. This won't be any different.
Well, it'd be pretty disastrous for a company with a revenue stream derived primarily from software sales, but that hardly describes Sun.
If they're this optimistic about such, why not pull some build out that worked with sun4m and make it just as open as what exists today - even if it amounts only to being a olive branch to systems long since devalued by that move. That, and it gives a very compact/cheap option for SPARC that doesnt skimp on the hardware (unlike U5/U10's cheapened design).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
...changing/hacking the source but about just and only having the POSSIBILITY to view and hack/change the source. Open Source is a principle - not a method to $what-ever.
Surely, you may want to talk to the CEOs of MySQL and Qt developers Trolltech, who release their projects under the GPL and do turn a profit. In the case of Sun, as others already have mentioned, they make money on the hardware, and commoditising software is only good for them.
Of course, these are corporations. Speaking of private persons, what about a certain Linus Torvalds, who is now fairly well-off?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
BSD licence? Hello? I don't think Sun prefers a license where everyone (MS) can copy stuff from Solaris into their proprietary products without giving anything back. BSD license may have its place, but this is not it.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Yeah, Right....I bet they'll GPL java before they allow that to happen. :)
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
What about hardware support?
Not to start an argument, but wasn't there an article posted on this very website telling us how OpenSolaris was/is the Linux killer*? So far how has that one panned out? Other F/OSS operating systems never really make it to relevancy because frankly, their hardware support is always years behind that of Linux. That very reason is why I switched (at least for now) from BSD, back to Linux.
*I must note that it funny that they compared OpenSolaris to SUSE - clearly the slowest of the major Linux distros.
The Free Software Foundation has made no announcements on either of these developments.
The FSF statement will come on Monday in the official Sun press conference.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Not necessarily... Trolltech was under proessure to release QT under the GPL. They did it ... did it hurt their business? Not in the slightest... in fact, they became even more successful. Ninenine has an axe to grind with free software, that's all. His "GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it" just shows how uninformed he is.
Hm...
.. - without spending hours for #ifdef'ing and patching the source.
When you can get an open-sourced carrier-grade OS like (Open)Solaris at no cost,
why still Linux?
OpenSolaris surely currently lacks a lot of (x86) hardware support, no drivers
for widespread hardware, etc. - but as more and more users actively use and
support OpenSolaris, more and more vendors will provide those.
What I don't like about Linux - Linux (and a lot of Linux software), that is - is
the neverending story of changing APIs - use something, update something else - Oops.
I have a Linux system here, with at least three different versions of, e.g., BerkeleyDB.
1.85 compat, 3.something, 4.idontknow. API changes, incompatibilities, you name it.
Ever tried to compile popular Linux software on another Un*x? Whenever I encounter some
piece of GPL-licensed software, I can almost guarantee it won't compile on Solaris, Tru64,
You want DTrace? Zones? Use Solaris. Is there any technical reason (no politics, please) where
using Linux actually offers any benefit?
(Yes, "smc" and all those java-based admin utilities suck. But commandline-based alternatives
do exist.)
This is not a flamebait. Serious answers will be appreciated.
Or at least we might get dtrace on Linux :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
You can't lock out competition.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Actually, Solaris x86 used to be fairly expensive. I looked at buying a copy, 'just because' a number of years ago, before they turned Solaris 7 loose for free (the first free version). It was beyond my means as a non-commercial individual.
The best part about Sun being GPLed (the CDDL is a fine license itself) is that ZFS can be implemented as a kernel module rather than in FUSE. The idea of running non-trivial enterprise filesystem in user-space is abhorent to me.
Enough said.
The filesystem is the package manager
Not necessarily... Trolltech was under proessure to release QT under the GPL. They did it ... did it hurt their business? Not in the slightest... in fact, they became even more successful.
Poor example. QT is dual licensed (the GPLed version is only usable if you are developing GPLed software).
Ninenine has an axe to grind with free software, that's all. His "GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it" just shows how uninformed he is.
Who derives a primary revenue stream only from selling GPLed software ?
You're absolutely right, I chose the wording badly. But in recent years the only charge for Solaris has been for the CD packaging.
...Steve
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.
It seems like a GPL Solaris would satisfy the needs of people like you, providing everything that people like about Linux with everything that you like about Solaris.
That sounds like a system whose package manager has been bypassed.
That doesn't sound like a Linux problem. Ever try porting a Solaris device driver to Tru64? Same thing. (It's easier than it sounds, if one is willing to spend hours #ifdef'ing and patching the source.) Lots of GPL software is already prepackaged for Solaris; if it's not on the Sun extras CD it's probably on blastwave.org or sunfreeware.com.
The rapid change of the Linux kernel results in new ideas and improvements being tried sooner and shortens the shelf life of cruft. Some aspect of the kernel look gross? All it takes to remove it is something better. Want hotpluggable SATA drivers? You don't have to wait long.
I installed a recent version of Solaris and on x86_64 hardware the minimum memory requirement is 512 MB. Maybe it's not really 512 MB - maybe omitting Gnome etc. would make it much smaller - but all I know is what the installer tells me. Linux is easy to install on machines with less memory (though it was annoying when RHEL started requiring 256 MB).
This might have changed since the last time I tried it, but Solaris x86 wants to be installed to a primary partition, which is sometimes not optimal.
Linux has a greater variety of filesystems available. It sounds like ZFS is great, but undoubtedly there is some niche that it's not optimal for. If XFS had been available for Solaris 5 years ago it would have saved me a ton of work.
I hope this has improved, but one area where Solaris used to really drop the ball was ATA controller support. With Sun selling x86_64 hardware, though, I can't imagine they'd let that situation continue.
Although as a business Sun would only make statements about existing licenses, i.e., GPLv2, Schwartz and others already are on record as liking how the GPLv3 is shaping up; the big jump was to GPL v.anything.
Sun should eventually put OpenSolaris under GPLv3 when it comes out simply because it fixes the GPL2 in important ways and offers important advantages such as greater compatibility with other licenses. But additional kinds of motivation can be given.
The following explanation involves the kind of symbolic considerations that partly characterize the Java move to the GPL. It too may help Sun gain against IBM, a heavy proponent of the Linux kernel.
A possible way for Sun and OpenSolaris to gain even more mindshare is by exploiting a division in the FOSS community. Some top Linux kernel developers decided against GPLv3 very vehemently while decrying a split in the wider developer community of v2 vs. v3. A major factor in the decision is to allow for enforcement of DRM, a factor which may not constrain OpenSolaris's direction so much.
The important (unexaggerated) divide involves kernel developers. OpenSolaris has more to gain than to lose by going GPLv3. To users and developers in general, Sun comes off as an even bolder, more progressive leader, just as with the Java announcement Monday.
The FOSS community dwarfs in number the few dozen kernel developers described above and it's safe to say the most of the community were caught off guard by the announcement from the developers; the expectation was that there would be an eventual move of the kernel to GPLv3. Sun could use the same kind of exquisite timing of the Java announcement on the heels of the Novell/MS flub and announce OpenSolaris under the GPLv3, satisfying the unfulfilled expectation of having a kernel under the GPLv3. IBM would be caught off guard again.
The Java move was disruptive, and this move is disruptive in the same way with little downside. It's not for the sake of disruption but disruptive against the likes of IBM.
That it isn't being called GNU/Java!
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Well well well. This is a rather interesting kettle of fish now isn't it?
With it looking like Linus and company are going to be averse to GPL3 (to wit, they very likely couldn't go GPL3 even if they *wanted* to), what if -- just "what if", mind you -- OpenSolaris began plans to go GPLv3? Hm. I wonder... GNU/Solaris?
That would be something, now wouldn't it? I wonder if you'd see the FSF (and a fair portion of the rest of the free software community) jump on OpenSolaris an the preferred free software kernel for GNU? (Ahem -- until HURD is ready, of course).
Very interesting prospects indeed.
Wow, I would really like to see some evidence of that. As it stands, it's just an absurd claim with no support. Having (over a period of 15+ years) used Sun equipment and software, and having worked with the company as a customer, and having known people who were employees at Sun, I would say that the chances of this being true are about 0.01%. Sun doesn't like being told what to do by Microsoft, or have you forgotten that Sun once famously sued Microsoft over Java and also once banned PowerPoint presentations? In fact, here's a Scott McNealy quote about the PowerPoint thing:
So, it's really hard to believe that a company with this history would be in bed with Microsoft and on some kind of anti-GPL crusade. Anyway, you also said:
I hardly see how this can be considered flip-flopping. Two years, neither Solaris nor Java was open source in any sense. A year ago (approximately), Solaris was open-sourced. Today, Java was open-sourced, and they mentioned they are thinking of adding GPL to the list of licenses for Solaris. This seems like a steady trend in the direction of open source.
So what? Dovecot is a really cool GPL-ed POP/IMAP server, and I don't recall the FSF making any announcement when it was released. Nor do I recall the FSF making any announcement when many other things were released under the GPL. It's not necessary because the GPL speaks for itself.
What common ancestors? Solaris is based on System V Unix from AT&T, not on BSD. Yes, Solaris 1.x (a/k/a SunOS 4.x) was based on BSD, but it was pretty much totally rewritten before Solaris 2.x, so Solaris 2.x (and 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.) have very little in common with Solaris 1.x, and thus very little in common with BSD. You will notice that /usr/bin/ps
on Solaris takes options like "-ef" rather than
options like "aux", and you will also notice that
sh's echo command needs "\c" in
the string instead of "-n" as a separate argument
if you want to supress the newline. So you can see that
the Solaris command-line utilities are not very BSD-like.
Actually, I'm fairly sure it's the default on Slackware 10.2!!
He didn't say anything about device drivers. He said "software". As in regular old userspace application or utility. Ever tried to compile xine or something like that for Solaris? There is a lot of software out there written by people who ignorant of (for example) which headers must be #include-ed for which functions and whose software is incorrect but happens to work on Linux. A lot of times these bugs only get fixed when someone tries to compile it on some non-Linux system, it fails, they fix the bugs, and they submit a patch back to the author. Yes, that is open source, distributed development in action, and that's great, but only if the author accepts the patch and doesn't keep making the same mistakes again and again.
Poor example. QT is dual licensed (the GPLed version is only usable if you are developing GPLed software).
Actually, this is an excellent example. It clearly shows that the GPL is by no means business unfriendly for the developers/copyright holders, only for others who wish to profit off their work without contributing back. Those who do not want to GPL their software can purchase a non-GPL license, whereas those who do wish to GPL their software can use it freely. If you think about it, it's something like a patent on source code that only expires when the copyrights do. People can benefit from your work through openness, but not hide it in a proprietary product without making a separate agreement with you.
Let's put it another way. The GPL is something like giving to the public domain with the associated good will from your customers, but without giving up your copyrights. That doesn't mean others won't do anything with your work mind you, there is only so much control and forks can happen, but they will also be GPL'ing their versions. You can take whatever code you like to integrate back into your original GPLed version, although not into a proprietary licensed version without agreement from the code's developer. You have little to lose from the GPL unless you want absolute control, but potentially much to gain if there are enough interested contributors.
Who derives a primary revenue stream only from selling GPLed software ?
Who derives a primary revenue stream only from selling software? Most software companies also sell support, either per incident or through a contract. Training tends to be quite lucrative as well. I find it humorous how much is spent on training and support for e.g. IBM/Rational and Oracle products somewhere that I won't mention, but I can't argue that it's a good business model for the vendors.
GPL: Free as in will
Right. They sure hated it when everyone copied NFS and didn't give anything back...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A network file system != your OS crown jewels.
As I said, there are places for using BSD. One of those is if you have a new technology which profits from the network effect, and you want to establish it as a standard. Network protocols or network file systems are prime candidates for this. Solaris is not.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Actually, this is an excellent example.
Well, I agree that it *is* a good example, but not for proving the point you're trying to make.
It clearly shows that the GPL is by no means business unfriendly for the developers/copyright holders, only for others who wish to profit off their work without contributing back.
On the contrary, it conveniently shows that the GPL is not "business friendly", simply from the existence of a dual license. If the GPL was "business friendly", the dual licensing wouldn't be necessary.
The point here is that you can't make money selling GPLed software, without tying it to some other product.
You have little to lose from the GPL unless you want absolute control, but potentially much to gain if there are enough interested contributors.
What you have to lose from the GPL is the likelihood of ever selling your software. What you have to gain is the relatively remote possibility that other people will be nice enough to improve your product for free.
Who derives a primary revenue stream only from selling software?
Microsoft. Most game companies. There's no shortage of companies (or corporate departments) who derive most of their money from selling software (or software licenses).
Most software companies also sell support, either per incident or through a contract. Training tends to be quite lucrative as well. I find it humorous how much is spent on training and support for e.g. IBM/Rational and Oracle products somewhere that I won't mention, but I can't argue that it's a good business model for the vendors.
I didn't say companies who had _no_ other sources of revenue, I said companies who derive most of their money from software sales. The GPL makes that essentially impossible and, hence, removes those companies' business models. *THAT* is why TrollTech dual-licence QT - because they know if they didn't they would have a great deal of trouble making enough money to stay in business.
What I find ironic is that even the people who steadfastly insist the GPL is "business friendly" usually do so in the same breath they say "because you can just dual license" - seemingly unaware they're shooting down their own argument.
What are you trying to define as business friendly? Does "business friendly" mean that businesses can take the work of others freely and use them in products without giving back the improvements they made back to the original authors? If that is you mean then no, the GPL is not business friendly as it was designed to specifically counteract that.
The use of dual licensing gives the author(s) the best of both worlds. If you want to build upon the fruits of others, either contribute code under the same terms, or pay for a license from the original authors. Tit-for-tat. do ut des. blahblahblah
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
On this basis, whether they GPL Solaris will depend on how strong they think the threat from Linux is. Does Sun have any other realistic choice?
Reduce, reuse, cycle
OpenSolaris surely currently lacks a lot of (x86) hardware support, no drivers
for widespread hardware, etc. - but as more and more users actively use and
support OpenSolaris, more and more vendors will provide those.
Chicken, meet egg. The users aren't there because the support isn't there. Pretty much every computer geek I know has tried out Linux by now on some machine (doesn't mean they all use it regularly because of games and other things. How many have tried OpenSolaris? Close to none. Don't have the hardware.
You want DTrace? Zones?
A: Don't know. Don't know what they are or how they're useful. Can I play around with them on my machine?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A merging of the codebases would create:
gunix = GNU Unix = GNU's I can't believe its not unix.
Opensolaris can already run linux distributions as a non-global zone. Its called brandz and involved providing the API's of a particular rev of the linux kernel (2.4.21???) aparently (I'm no brandz expert, just gave it a whirl). Tis nifty. You now have linux apps running on top of a solaris kernel unmodified. Looks just like a linux box. Not sure how useful it is though. They claim a 5% performance overhead and obviously hardware drivers are likely to be a bit odd as your not running linux at all but solaris.
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/
Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.
I may misunderstand the issues, but I think GPL Java impacts distribution a lot. It can now be included in Debian, Redhat etc. Contribution/modification will allow it to be ported without the same licencing problems, I think BSD's have had trouble with this in the past. The way in which contribution to the official java is handled will be secondary to this in some ways.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
What are you trying to define as business friendly?
That would be the ability to, you know,*make money* from selling the product. "The product", in this case, being software.
Does "business friendly" mean that businesses can take the work of others freely and use them in products without giving back the improvements they made back to the original authors? If that is you mean then no, the GPL is not business friendly as it was designed to specifically counteract that.
The GPL is not "business friendly" because selling GPLed software is, for all intents and purposes, impossible unless it is tied to some other (non-GPLed) product.
The "business" under discussion here is selling software. Not selling hardware. Not selling support contracts. Not selling programming time. Not selling some other product for which you have written software. Selling *software*.
If you're having trouble understanding this, consider the video game industry. That is an example of a business model almost totally incompatible with the GPL[0].
The use of dual licensing gives the author(s) the best of both worlds.
Not really, since they would not be able use any of the user-contributed code in their non-GPLed code base (unless the contributors are happy to sign their copyrights away with the understanding that would happen - unlikely for anyone writing GPLed code).
If you want to build upon the fruits of others, either contribute code under the same terms, or pay for a license from the original authors. Tit-for-tat. do ut des. blahblahblah
As is normal with any attempt to discuss the downsides of the GPL, we end up at the "you just want to be able to use other people's work for free" strawman (an idea I have never in this discussion even *suggested*).
[0]Games with a significant subscription-style component (eg: WoW) being a notable example. Although - surprise - only because they are tied to some other non-GPLed product.
Sun didn't give money to SCO for nothing. They bought rights to SCO Unix, so that they could incorporate the drivers into Solaris. At the time, SCO Unix had relatively good Intel/PC support, and Solaris, quite honestly, wouldn't run on 75% of the PCs out there (I know this first hand. I have a Solaris 8 media set. I couldn't get it to install on a Thinkpad or a cheap VIA based box. Even Darwin ran better on both.)
Part of the problem was how they worded it. They pointed out at the time they'd bought the rights in such a way that Solaris users would never have to worry about being sued by SCO. This made it sound like they'd paid a blackmail charge, rather than actually buying the right to redistribute actual (as opposed to imagined) SCO code.
They're now talking openly about moving to the GPL away from the CDDL. I can't help but feel that's good news.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
GNU = GNU's Not Unix
#!/
Yes.I agree, I also find it too much work for use on Solaris, so I'll use something like OpenBSD, FreeBSD and so on instead which is far easier.
Well, it actually works with most hardware, has modern proprietary games, proprietary desktop software available that isn't available to OpenSolaris... Yeah. Plus, believe it or not, some distributions are actually easier to use than Solaris.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Device drivers are "software". It's natural and expected that software designed, run and tested on only one system will require work to port to another system. Every OS has non-POSIX interfaces that many programs use. Here's a non-device-driver example: ever try porting an application that uses Solaris threads to another platform? It doesn't "just work", but it's doable. There are often basic differences between environments. Linux is the only OS I know of that has a "linux" subdirectory in /usr/include.
if I may suggest ...
The point here is that you can't make money selling GPLed software, without tying it to some other product.
The dual license isn't another product. It's another set of terms through which another entity can distribute copies of your product, presumably with a different set of restrictions.
What you have to lose from the GPL is the likelihood of ever selling your software. What you have to gain is the relatively remote possibility that other people will be nice enough to improve your product for free.
You have the good will of your customers to gain. If your product is worth its salt, which not all are, you'll sell licenses in any case. Larger entities will definitely buy, and a large number of them will not use anything that does not have some sort of paid support structure.
Microsoft. Most game companies. There's no shortage of companies (or corporate departments) who derive most of their money from selling software (or software licenses).
Microsoft makes their share from publishing MCSE training materials as well. Most game publishers make their money from selling some (but definitely not all or even most) software, the whole thing being a gamble of who will buy which typically shelf life limited product first. Those that last for a longer time without languishing on the shelf tend to be those with an additional cost, such as WoW and EQ.
I didn't say companies who had _no_ other sources of revenue, I said companies who derive most of their money from software sales. The GPL makes that essentially impossible and, hence, removes those companies' business models. *THAT* is why TrollTech dual-licence QT - because they know if they didn't they would have a great deal of trouble making enough money to stay in business.
You said major sources of revenue, and both training and support can be major sources. TrollTech added the GPL to their product because their customers demanded it; the QPL was there before, and no doubt some customers were already using those terms who may not wish to use the GPL.
What I find ironic is that even the people who steadfastly insist the GPL is "business friendly" usually do so in the same breath they say "because you can just dual license" - seemingly unaware they're shooting down their own argument.
No, what's convenient about the GPL is that you protect your product from proprietary exploitation by your competitors in a modified form that you cannot use yourself. No one-upsmanship where you cannot follow, unless they pay you for the privilege. An additional license is simply an agreement between yourself and those who want different terms, with a different pricing tier.
GPL: Free as in will
I put the "wild" preface there for a reason. The FSF is a great organization, but sometimes they are a bit nutty. Eben has some heavy insight into things from a legal and IBM perspective, and is tied directly to important figures in these matters. He likely heard a rumor or two and pieced it together as something far larger than it was. I have no sources other than what I heard at that meeting.
The FSF has been listing a Free version of Java as a top priority for the past few years, stating that it is the largest hole in the Free Software community. See http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html. The FSF shouldn't announce the GPL'ing of Java, but it should respond to the announcements by commending Sun, removing GCC/Java from it's priorities list, and/or getting Stallman to amend his Java rant.My bad, I got it backwards (which is odd, since I'm a Solaris admin). That was added as an afterthought.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
In other words, a pretty much standard GNU/Linux distribution that's been used for more than a few months and had to be updated a few times.
Dependency hell. Don't you just love it? ;-)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Bypassing the package manager would make it a nonstandard system. I can't think of a reason why an ordinary user would need to install three different versions of the same program; a developer might, but then all bets are off.
I use a package manager, so I don't get to experience it (even on Solaris; pkg-get is wonderful.)
Well, I've done it. The usual reason is you're trying to install the latest-greatest of something, but it requires libraries that are not only newer than what you have, but are incompatible with some existing apps. I remember trying to upgrade glibc and finding the package manager wanted to remove half a dozen apps and subsystems because ONE dependency was incompatible with that glibc.
Huh? I use a package manager on my Debian installation. I suffer dependency hell. Mac OS X doesn't suffer this problem. I don't use a package manager on it.
Dependency hell is the product of an environment in which everyone thinks that everyone else has a million or so development libraries on their machines, that are always up to date and yet never, ever, change. It sucks. If you're not suffering it under Solaris, I suggest it has to do with saner behaviour with Solaris, which is possibly (I have no idea, last time I used Solaris was version 8, which never installed, so I'll have to go back and take a look at it) better managed than most GNU/Linux installations, not because of your use of a package manager.
Dependency hell is not solved by package managers, indeed usually it's made worse, both by the reliance upon them and the degree to which they make resolving some dependencies doubly hard (by making it more difficult to install two versions of the same application.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The dual license isn't another product.
I never said it was.
You need to re-read what I'm writing. Because it's clear - either deliberately or accidentally - you are misinterpreting what I'm saying.
It's another set of terms through which another entity can distribute copies of your product, presumably with a different set of restrictions.
Yes. Terms which are created *because the terms of the GPL are not appropriate to the purpose of selling software*.
You have the good will of your customers to gain.
In most cases your "customers" - ie: people who pay for your software - couldn't care less whether or not it was GPLed.
If your product is worth its salt, which not all are, you'll sell licenses in any case.
Rubbish.
Basing a business on the idea people will voluntarily give you money just because you have a good product is financial suicide.
Larger entities will definitely buy, [...]
No business is going to pay good money for a product which can be acquired for free. For starters, it's fiscally irresponsible.
[...] and a large number of them will not use anything that does not have some sort of paid support structure.
In which case we're back to having to tie GPLed software to some other product like paid support to make it financially viable. Ie: the whole freaking point of this discussion.
Microsoft makes their share from publishing MCSE training materials as well.
Indeed they do - I never suggested otherwise.
The vast bulk of their revenue, however, comes from software sales. Moving down the tree to software companies which aren't lucky enough to have the size to invest in multiple markets, and the proportion of their revenue coming from software sales is even higher.
Most game publishers make their money from selling some (but definitely not all or even most) software, the whole thing being a gamble of who will buy which typically shelf life limited product first. Those that last for a longer time without languishing on the shelf tend to be those with an additional cost, such as WoW and EQ.
Where do game companies without subscription services like WoW derive revenue from if not software sales ?
How would you propose a game company make money from a GPLed game *without tying it to some other product* ?
You said major sources of revenue, and both training and support can be major sources.
Again with the straw man.
Look, I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this...
We are talking about SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, training, online worlds, hardware or anything else. SOFTWARE. The business model that SOFTWARE COMPANIES rely on to make money. That companies can also make money by selling support, training, access to subscriber-only services or hardware IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. The point I am trying to get across, is that the GPL DOES NOT WORK for the business model of selling software. The only way to make GPLed software viable as a revenue stream is to tie it to some other non-GPLed product.
This is, I might add, a point you tacitly agree with, even while trying to argue against it. That's why every single counterexample you try to use relies on either a) tying the GPLed software to some other product to make it useful or b) dual licensing.
TrollTech added the GPL to their product because their customers demanded it; the QPL was there before, and no doubt some customers were already using those terms who may not wish to use the GPL.
TrollTech's customers - the people who actually pay them - aren't using the GPLed version. TrollTech GPLed QT to get a foot in the door of the Linux bandwagon - because selling software to typical Linux users, outside of a few highly specific examples, is nearly impossible due to their single-minded focus on the belief that anything no
I never said it was.
You said that a company cannot make money from GPLed software unless they tie it to a non-GPLed product. This is false.
You need to re-read what I'm writing. Because it's clear - either deliberately or accidentally - you are misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I've read your writing, but it seems clear that you do not understand either the spirit or letter of the GPL. This is not surprising, the GPL is one of the most commonly misunderstood software licenses.
Yes. Terms which are created *because the terms of the GPL are not appropriate to the purpose of selling software*.
The terms are there explicitly to guarantee access to the source code, which is a different problem. It is not incompatible with selling the software. Let's be very clear here; the GPL is an open source license first, but its provisions do not prevent the software from being sold.
In most cases your "customers" - ie: people who pay for your software - couldn't care less whether or not it was GPLed.
Larger customers, with deeper pockets, do indeed care whether they have the source to a product which they wish to deploy. Business code in particular, which is amongst the most widely developed code out there, but other software which might be useful as well.
Basing a business on the idea people will voluntarily give you money just because you have a good product is financial suicide.
This is no different whether the software is open source or not. You still have to sell it to your customer, and if they believe your product to be worthless then they won't buy it. If your product is really that good, people will pay for it. Most everyone wants a say in their favorite software product's development, and in the case of open source software in particular features can definitely be purchased.
In which case we're back to having to tie GPLed software to some other product like paid support to make it financially viable. Ie: the whole freaking point of this discussion.
And your point is not valid. We'll go over why in the rest of this message.
The vast bulk of their revenue, however, comes from software sales. Moving down the tree to software companies which aren't lucky enough to have the size to invest in multiple markets, and the proportion of their revenue coming from software sales is even higher.
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. Most software companies will gladly offer high priced service agreements to corporations that use their services, and these companies have a better chance of seeing their software used in these very lucrative environments. Many large and small software companies are more than happy to take money in exchange for support if an entity is willing to spend it. If yours is not... Well, your competition probably is.
Where do game companies without subscription services like WoW derive revenue from if not software sales ?
Game publishers gain some quick revenue from software sales while the product is still hot, but a lot of games do not in fact make money. (*cough* Daikatana *cough*) Plenty of game companies go out of business regardless of the license of their software, because the gaming industry's customers are fickle. Licensing and merchandising of gaming franchises (toys, TV shows, breakfast cereals and the like) make up a lot more of their profit than they might be comfortable with. For that matter, the majority of what compromises a game these days is the content and not just the code. In that light, games really should fit the GPL model if your assertions are correct. Open sourcing the code (as has happened for a number of games after release, particularly those from id software) does not prevent a company from making money when done properly. People still buy id games that have been open sourced, even if only for nostalgia.
We are talking abo
GPL: Free as in will
That's odd; I've only suffered dependency hell on my Debian or Ubuntu installations when I bypassed the package manager. Were you using Unstable?
I disagree; the problem is incredibly reduced by package managers, because when you want to install a package, you don't have to track down the programs it depends on, the programs that those programs depend on, etc. The only things that a package manager have trouble with are rare corner cases, such as when you want to have two versions of the same application or when you want to have two packages with conflicting dependencies (where success or failure depends on how shared libraries and versioning are implemented, not on whether or not there's a package manager).
You said that a company cannot make money from GPLed software unless they tie it to a non-GPLed product. This is false.
Yes, that was "cannot" in the colloquial sense of "well, maybe you _could_ make money off it, somehow, if you were incredibly lucky, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible".
I use just "cannot" because it's a lot quicker and easier to type, and the meaning is blatantly obvious from context to anyone not trying to be a pedantic arsehole.
I've read your writing, but it seems clear that you do not understand either the spirit or letter of the GPL. This is not surprising, the GPL is one of the most commonly misunderstood software licenses.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good handle on the spirit, definition, intent and harsh reality of the GPL.
The terms are there explicitly to guarantee access to the source code, which is a different problem. It is not incompatible with selling the software. Let's be very clear here; the GPL is an open source license first, but its provisions do not prevent the software from being sold.
Literally, no. Practically, yes.
Larger customers, with deeper pockets, do indeed care whether they have the source to a product which they wish to deploy.
Ignoring for a second the massive quantity of proprietry software used by businesses the refutes this assertion, "GPLed code" and "customer access to source" are not even remotely close to being synonymous.
Business code in particular, which is amongst the most widely developed code out there, but other software which might be useful as well.
Most "business code" isn't GPLed and, indeed, GPLing it would (rightly) be seen as sacrificing a competitive advantage.
This is no different whether the software is open source or not. You still have to sell it to your customer, and if they believe your product to be worthless then they won't buy it.
Indeed. The major difference is when *do* like it, and can (legally) get it for free, they're significantly less likely to pay for it out of generosity.
If your product is really that good, people will pay for it. Most everyone wants a say in their favorite software product's development, and in the case of open source software in particular features can definitely be purchased.
Reality intrudes at this point and reminds us that the vast majority of people will not pay for a product or service they can also get for free (or significantly cheaper).
The problem with selling GPLed software is that your first customer can quite legally resell copies at a lower price than you, and/or make copies freely available. Exactly how do you propose to run a business selling software when that can happen ?
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. Most software companies will gladly offer high priced service agreements to corporations that use their services, and these companies have a better chance of seeing their software used in these very lucrative environments. Many large and small software companies are more than happy to take money in exchange for support if an entity is willing to spend it. If yours is not... Well, your competition probably is.
Something I have never disputed, but is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion, which is SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, hardware, additional content or subscription services.
I am well aware you can build a successful business around selling GPLed software tied to support contracts and the like. The point I am trying to get across - and have re-stated numerous times in this discussion - is that *WITHOUT* tying the GPLed software to these additional products or services, building a business around selling it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Game publishers gain some quick revenue from software sales while the product is still hot, but a lot of games do not in fact make money. (*
Yes, that was "cannot" in the colloquial sense of "well, maybe you _could_ make money off it, somehow, if you were incredibly lucky, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible".
Your interpretation, but it's a flawed interpretation which is based on your limited definition of selling software.
I use just "cannot" because it's a lot quicker and easier to type, and the meaning is blatantly obvious from context to anyone not trying to be a pedantic arsehole.
I'll avoid responding in kind, however you did say that it cannot be done. Clearly this is not true. If you meant unlikely, that would be a different word.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good handle on the spirit, definition, intent and harsh reality of the GPL.
I'm pretty sure you have a handle on what you think it means; that doesn't mean you understand the GPL. It's unlikely if you think the reality is harsh, the GPL is a reflection of the reality of copyright laws.
Literally, no. Practically, yes.
Yet it still happens.
Ignoring for a second the massive quantity of proprietry software used by businesses the refutes this assertion, "GPLed code" and "customer access to source" are not even remotely close to being synonymous.
You also ignore the tremendous amount of GPL software used by businesses, particularly technology companies and large corporations in their network infrastructure. Indeed, all that business code is supported and wouldn't be where it was unless it was.
Most "business code" isn't GPLed and, indeed, GPLing it would (rightly) be seen as sacrificing a competitive advantage.
That depends on which business code; As I had mentioned, there are some applications for which the GPL does not make sense. There is a tremendous amount where it does however, particularly in business infrastructure.
Indeed. The major difference is when *do* like it, and can (legally) get it for free, they're significantly less likely to pay for it out of generosity.
Smaller entities are indeed less likely, but a large number of them are unlikely to buy them even if they are not free - how much software do you suppose is pirated? These are not the customers that generate revenue. The world has plenty of people who will not pay for software regardless of the license.
Reality intrudes at this point and reminds us that the vast majority of people will not pay for a product or service they can also get for free (or significantly cheaper).
Again, these are not generally the sort that would pay for software in the first place. A business model for software includes presenting a value proposition for customers, including support and training. If you take this away from your software, you're not likely to get very far.
The problem with selling GPLed software is that your first customer can quite legally resell copies at a lower price than you, and/or make copies freely available. Exactly how do you propose to run a business selling software when that can happen ?
It can be redistributed, this is true, but your name stays on the software. If you do not provide a value proposition to your customers, they will indeed not pay you. If you can provide support and training, you'll make money. Cheapbytes sells CDs from several Linux distributions, yet the distributions continue to exist. This is because they provide a value proposition in their product that Cheapbytes does not.
Something I have never disputed, but is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion, which is SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, hardware, additional content or subscription services.
Your difficulty seems to be that you feel a need to separate them. If you've tried selling software without a support structure then I'm not surprised you failed. The customer who actually pays money for your product expects support of some sort to e
GPL: Free as in will
Your interpretation, but it's a flawed interpretation which is based on your limited definition of selling software.
No, it's my interpretation based on what "selling software" actually is - and "selling software" is not "selling support contracts" or "selling hardware" or the like.
I'll avoid responding in kind, however you did say that it cannot be done. Clearly this is not true. If you meant unlikely, that would be a different word.
Indeed it would, although "unlikely" is not a strong enough word.
The meaning of my statement is quite obvious in context. Again, only those trying to avoid the issue by constructing a counter-argument based solely on pedantic observation would misinterpret as you did.
I'm pretty sure you have a handle on what you think it means; that doesn't mean you understand the GPL. It's unlikely if you think the reality is harsh, the GPL is a reflection of the reality of copyright laws.
The GPL is far more than that.
Yet it [selling GPLed software] still happens.
That doesn't make it a viable business plan.
You also ignore the tremendous amount of GPL software used by businesses, particularly technology companies and large corporations in their network infrastructure. Indeed, all that business code is supported and wouldn't be where it was unless it was.
No, I don't. Your flawed assumption is that a significant proportion of companies are using that code _because_ it is GPLed. Ie: because of the unique aspects of the GPL.
Most companies support their business code internally. Whether or not it is GPLed is pretty much irrelevant.
That depends on which business code;
I think you need to define what you mean by "business code" here. I am working under the assumption that "business code" means code developed *by the business* to help its workflow.
I am beginning to think by "business code" you mean "software used by business", which would change the situation markedly. What _do_ you mean by "business code" ?
Smaller entities are indeed less likely, but a large number of them are unlikely to buy them even if they are not free - how much software do you suppose is pirated?
A lot, but taking away the assumption of legal behaviour changes the discussion significantly. For example, a major "benefit" you extoll for the GPL (modified code redistribution) disappears.
These are not the customers that generate revenue. The world has plenty of people who will not pay for software regardless of the license.
Stop avoiding the issue. Most people will not pay for something they can legally acquire for free. This is basic human nature.
Again, these are not generally the sort that would pay for software in the first place.
Utter rubbish. A basic tenet of human nature is that people will seek to "pay" the least possible for goods and services. Very few people are prepared to pay a given amount for something they could otherwise acquire for free, or for less. Heck, the whole idea of the free market hinges on this concept, yet you are blithely asserting it doesn't exist ?
A business model for software includes presenting a value proposition for customers, including support and training. If you take this away from your software, you're not likely to get very far.
The vast amount of profitable proprietry software that isn't based around a business model of ongoing support and training payments disagrees with you.
Quite frankly, the proportion of software that is sold on the proviso of ongoing payments for support, training, etc, is quite small (although large in $$$ terms) and targeted at a relatively tiny proportion of buyers.
It can be redistributed, this is true, but your name stays on the software.
Unfortunately a sated ego doesn't pay the bills.
If you do not provide a value proposition to your customers, they will indeed not pay you. If
You may have noticed that this is getting a bit unwieldy, I'm going to try to pare this down to the basic points. I do have a life and family outside of Slashdot, despite the length of this debate.
A small minority of users derive benefit from being able to customise the source to their needs, but even those would be just as well served by the BSD or a form of "shared source" license, as they typically have little interest in - if not outright hostility towards - redistributing their modified code. That is because that modified code typically represents an advantage that company has (or perceives it has) over its competitors.
You've come very close to the intent of the GPL in this statement. That part about a company modifying a separate copyright holder's code and then not wanting to distribute the source. If the company never distributes the binaries, this is fine as the GPL doesn't cover modification unless the software is distributed. If they do not hold the copyright, AND do not want to distribute the source, they're out of luck for distributing the binaries. That's precisely what makes the GPL business friendly, this protection that another company will not do exactly this while preventing the original copyright holder from seeing the modifications. If they want to do this, they're going to have to ask the copyright holder. Given, it may be unfriendly to such a company, but that's copyright.
The point I have repeatedly tried to make - and which has been ignored, avoided or brushed aside at pretty much every turn - is that the GPL makes the business of *selling software* practically impossible.
I'll explain it again. If you feel that support is not implied when software is sold, then it may indeed be difficult. If you tell your customers that they're not going to get support or updates of any sort with your application, I'd wager your sales are going to be very low regardless of license. GPLed software is not unique in this respect. Support includes making it function correctly and keeping it secure, extended support may include additional help with making the software do what the user wants. Software provides no value to your customer if they aren't able to use it. If your software doesn't work after your customer clicks on it, and you do not give any form of support (a knowledge base is a form of support) they're not going to be coming back for more. They might demand a refund, they could even try to sue your company.
As for how I define business code, I speak of the software at the core of the business which keeps operational processes functioning. Some of it is custom code, some of it libraries and frameworks, some of it (such as CRM software) may be purchased from a vendor or be GPLed. This is an aside from the point, but you asked and I won't leave you hanging.
GPL: Free as in will
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I don't think Solaris has a bright future. It's evolving too slow, too many restrictions, too many problems. Just look at their attempt to update their /bin/ksh from ksh88 to ksh93 - they're working on it since a year and they are still not finished. The ksh93 integration project takes an eternity or two while Linux does the same job in two weeks or a month. This shows the great failure of the Opensolaris project. They're too slow, often twelve times slower than Linux. Sun still has superior features, but at the current evolution rate it is just a matter of time when Linux becomes superior compared to Solaris and their management is deaf and blind and ignores the problem