Slashdot Mirror
Sun Exec Backs GPLv3
Hyperbeth writes "Sun's chief open-source officer Simon Phipps said that existing work towards GPLv3 had been 'extraordinary and effective' and he said he is 'frankly amazed by the criticisms'. The article notes that Mr. Phipps' comments are somewhat surprising, given that the recent open-sourcing of Java went forward with GPLv2." From the article: "I am frankly amazed by the criticisms that have [been] levelled at the GPLv3 process. They seem to ignore the incredible and positive way it is evolving and just find fault with things that are already the subject of work... I would be very surprised if the final GPLv3 was not an effective tool for some of the communities Sun sustains or will initiate in the future."
Because all smart people think just like he does, he's amazed at how many stupid people there really are out there.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The article notes that Mr. Phipps' comments are somewhat surprising, given that the recent open-sourcing of Java went forward with GPLv2
There is nothing surprising about this. GPL v3 in final, legally binding form doesn't exist yet, so of course any GPLed software released now will use GPL v2. It will only be surprising if future releases of Java don't use GPL v3 after it is finalized.
Why is that amazing to anyone? The GPLv3 isn't a finalized document yet so there's no reason to publish any source code under it.
They will not use it so if it helps destroy Linux it will be great for them.
Of course he says this. It will mean something when Solaris us placed under it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How is that surprising? GPL3 doesn't exist as a final license yet. Sun apparently like the draft and expect to like the final version but they'll make a decision on whether to use it when it exists. Obvious, no?
If future versions of java are released under GPLv3, does this mean that you won't be able to use those versions of java to implement DRM?
Why would it be a shock that Java is not licensed under the GPLv3? GPLv2 is well understood now in the legal community, and GPLv3 is going to be examined under a fine toothed comb for a long time even after it is published. It could be a long time before you see major software from large companies published under GPLv3 if at all.
One guy has seen the light, but what about the rest of them? Sun has a checkered past as a company. See here: http://malfy.org/
It is no surprise that Sun put Java under the GPL2 for now. Sun didn't want to wait for the GPL3 license to become final. The Novell/Microsoft deal puts a dark cloud over Mono (The Linux implementation of .Net) which is in direct competition to Java. If ever there would be a better time to free the Java code, I don't know when.
I think the entire OSS community owes Sun a big thank you.
We should now embrace Java and incorporate it into Linux. We should push away from ASP.net and move toward making Java the defacto standard for web applications and Java script the standard for dynamic web pages.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
There is nothing anti-DRM about what the GPLv3 does, at least in that manner.
You can use GPLv3 software to impliment DRM all day and night if you feel like it. Play DRM'd music, use it on DRM'd operating systems, etc etc etc.
What is anti-DRM about the GPL is that you can't use DRM to remove the ability for people to modify software and then be able to run those modified versions.
the GPLv3 only cares about the program. It doesn't care about the hardware or any DMR'd media or anything like that.
Anyways DRM is a failed technology. I give it another 3-5 years then nobody is going to give a shit anymore, at least anybody that matters. (repeat after me children: failed business model = irrelevent)
Nobody has yet to come out with a effective DRM and it is only used to be abused by companies like Apple and Microsoft so that people have a harder time moving away from using Ipods or Windows, because your file formats that are DRM'd are locking you into a paticular hardware (ipod) or software (future versions of Office).
GPLv3 IS being examined.
Suns praticipating, IBM praticipating, HP is praticipating. Anybody that has any stake in Free and Open source software is praticipating. They have their lawyers all over it.
when it gets released it WILL the most well reviewed open source license in history. Maybe even the most well reviewed software license ever.
It will eliminate the need for a whole class of licenses. Licenses that desire to be 'more free' then the GPL, but want to stay GPL-compatable.
The GPLv3 + exceptions is beuatfull and it is flexible in what sort of additional restrictions it can take. It will make it more compatable with Apache licenses, Mozilla licenses, and dozens of others. It may even be CDDL compatable.
It will help standardize licenses and make them easier to deal with and have less legal questions cloading the Linux arena.
The Patent language has long been needed and it is much more liberal and easier for companies to deal with then what is already used in MPL, CDDL, or the modern Apache licenses. Much more well designed then those supposwdly 'more corporate friendly license'. The Novell-Microsoft deal highlights the need for reform in this area of the GPL, there needs to be a intellegent and standard way to deal with this stuff and GPLv3 should provide it.
strongly endorses GPL v3. Hmmm.
How could we have used GPLv3 for Java when it isn't finished yet??? Doesn't the head of this posting put an unreasonable burden on Sun?
To see what I actually said, rather than relying on the ZDNet extracts, you'll find the original blog posting here. It's linked from the article but clearly from some of the comments above some people haven't spotted the link.
Sun might not elect to use GPLv3 for every project, but one project that could certainly benefit from its protections would be OpenOffice. Novell can sign any kind of pact with MS that they want; but if OpenOffice is GPLv3, Novell may find themselves on the wrong side of a legal fence. Personally, I want to know that I will always have a Free application I can use to edit my open document format documents. The GPLv3 can help ensure this, by protecting the project from patent landmines.
Then clicked through to the article, it was fluff, too. Finally, I clicked through the original blog entry, and it still says nothing but that Phipps has some vague warm fuzzy feelings about the way the GPL v3 process is working: not anything he likes about the license, not any arguments against the criticism (just that he is "amazed" that people are criticizing things that people are still working on: apparently he hasn't figured out that the things people are working on are being worked on particularly becuase they have been the target of criticism in earlier drafts.)
Complete, empty, content-free fluff the whole way back up to the source.
You are correct. JavaScript aka LiveScript is not Java. However its syntax is very close to Java which makes it a natural.
.NET needs to die. Microsoft has already beat the patent war drums while pointing to Mono. Novell claims that there is no patent infringement in Mono and they're probably right but the deal they made with Microsoft will cast doubts.
.NET technology then fine let them alone have it. We should create and push real open standards. The time for being nice guys is over.
The important thing is that Mono and
Microsoft has shown over and over that they aren't interested in playing fair or giving any quarter so the OSS community along with all IT companies that have management worth their weight in salt need to come to the realization that it's time to stop trying to deal with Microsoft and simply make them irrelevant. The only way to deal with bully is to punch him square in the nose.
Microsoft wants to control standards and the Internet. We must take those away from them. Any standard that Microsoft (or any company) encumbers with patents we should avoid. If they feel that they own the
We should also put the Justis Department to bring another anti-trust suit against Microsoft. God knows they haven't changed and continue to break the law. This time we need follow through and bust them up into at least three companyies.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Probably not the only error... I do that when I get on a roll...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Thankyou for pointing that out.
:-/
It's amazing that a tech journalist would be unaware of this. Isn't it?
you had me at #!
The article notes that Mr. Phipps' comments are somewhat surprising, given that the recent open-sourcing of Java went forward with GPLv2
First of all, GPLv3 isn't out yet, so Sun can't release under it. And it's understandable that many people are reluctant to release under "GPLv2 or later".
Furthermore, you can't judge licenses just by what they say, you have to judge them in context. Sun is not releasing Java under GPLv2; if they did, that would have been open-source hostile. What they did is announce that they will release Java under GPLv2 with linking exceptions on some parts; that's something very different. And even when GPLv3 comes out, specific open source projects may still benefit from GPLv2 because the terms of the license fit them better.
On the other hand, plenty of commercial companies are using the GPL as a nuisance license on their software, without actually running an open source project (many "dual-licensed" products fall into that category).
If you don't use the "or later version" language, your project will be incompatible with GPLv3 until you contact all the copyright holders and get permission to relicense.
What if you hate v3 when it is finished? You can change "v2 or later" to "v2 only", and the older versions with the "or later" bit will bitrot away.
What if you love v3 when it is finished? You do nothing, or you change "v2 or later" to "v3 or later". No need to track down all the copyright holders.
So "or later" isn't perfect, but it's a solution and the problem is worse.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
If Sun likes a license, it must be terrible :)
Hey, I'm happy that you can't put Java into Apache.
Ups, wrong religion war.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
It's about time somebody else publicly came out strongly on the side of RMS, who is clearly and obviously in the right here.
Now if only Sun made some worthwhile software that I could actually use so I could help support them....
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"There's a bit more to it than that. SUN didn't win. SUN and Microsoft settled."
There is a bit more to it than that also. They didn't settle because they believed that they wouldn't win big if the carried the lawsuit out to its end. They settled because it was becoming too much of a financial burden. The 800 pound gorilla used its enormous wealth to broker a deal it didn't deserve. Just one more example to prove that illegal activities are not off the table for Microsoft if they are profitable enough. Yet another reason to break Microsoft into three separate companies so they can't ignore the law.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!