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.
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.
It will mean something when Solaris us placed under it.
Why does this have to be the case? Why does it have to be black and white, all or nothing? Why can't open source be the right answer for some of Sun's projects and not the right answer for others? This seems perfectly sensible to me.
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.
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.
In fact my amazement stems from the fact that intelligent people who I respect are criticising things (like the DRM language) that have already been substantially altered, but arguing as if there has been no change to them. Sorry you find the whole thing "vacuous", you are clearly a Higher Intellect.
Actually I find most of the critizism of the GPLv3 "empty, content-free" attacks. In particular Linus has not really shown any argumentation skills. I challenge you to go back and have a look at the discussion on Groklaw, he was only making personal attacks at the "FSF zealots" accusing them of not listening to any critizism. The most funny point was that he was upset that he had not been given a version of the (first?) draft upfront to comment. I mean who does he think he is?! Why should he receive any special treatment just because he wrote Linux. The other thing that really stood out in that discussion is that he was never really answering to any of the other peoples arguments. I find this really typical of the "anti-GPLv3" camp. They mainly accuse the FSF of not listening, but refuse to take part in the draft process. They also act like the GPLv3 is being pushed onto people, it is not. You still have the free choice to use the licence you want.
If Sun's goal is assumed to be freedom, sure, that's true. Probably their goal is the best interest of the company and to some degree its customers. A lot of times free software will serve that, but I don't think it necessarily best serves it in all cases.
I think there's great things to be found, even for businesses in free software -- I just wish people saw it as more an option and less a religion.
It's not so much that it has to be GPLv3 (though the latter is an attempt to create a copyleft license that addresses all of the concerns that, currently, mean we have several totally incompatible copyleft licenses), it's more that there has to be a common license that people, for the most part, consider usable.
Right now, we have a situation where because, for example, Solaris is licensed under the CDDL, and Darwin is under the APSL, you can't put code from one in the other. Because of similar licensing issues, you can't put Java into Apache, despite the synergies, the two have to be kept separate.
If the essence of software freedom is that you should be able to do whatever you want with code, short of preventing others you pass that code on to from also having that freedom, then incompatible license fragmentation harms software freedom. If I can't build something on top of two free software projects because the two have licenses that conflict, then my freedom to do that is curtailed. Which is exactly the opposite of what most people who believe in software freedom want.
The GPLv3 needs to be created to be the consensus choice of those who want to develop and release Free software. If it isn't, it fails. Not because it'll not be a good license, but because it'll fail to prevent the biggest problem free software is suffering right now.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's a hot topic and there are plenty of voices for and against. It was like this discussing the use of the GPL for the Java platform though, extensive and passionate debate right up to the last minute. In the end GPL v2 with the Classpath exception was clearly preferable, but every possible option was explored.
One key difference with Solaris though is that the base source code is already open source Free software and is in the care of the OpenSolaris community, so while Sun obviously gets a big say in what happens it's not just down to us, the community will also need to discuss it.
Its NOT about you DRMing other peoples stuff, its about other people DRMing YOUR stuff. They (TIVO for example) are taking all of our work adding a little bit of their own and then making us unable to use their work as they used our work.
Sure, YOU won't buy DRMed hardware but other people will or, more likely, they won't even know about it and without the GPL3 its possible all of our collective work will be used yet we will not be free to do anything with our work on that hardware. The GPL is about freedom, it can't stop people from making DRM, but it will stop people from taking our free works and saying "no freedom here".