Slashdot Mirror
Sun to Add GPLv3 to OpenSolaris?
An anonymous reader writes to mention that sources inside Sun Microsystems claim that OpenSolaris may see the GPLv3 added to its list of licenses soon. From the article: "While Sun officials would not confirm the plan to dual-license OpenSolaris under the CDDL and GPLv3, Tom Goguen, vice president of Solaris software at Sun, told eWEEK that other open-source technologies will play a big role in Solaris going forward. 'Take the GNU Userland, which is an interesting piece of technology that Sun is looking at closely, and we may do something similar with, say, a container flavor,' he said. 'You can also expect to see a renewed focus on the needs of developers and system administrators with Solaris going forward, while individual pieces of the next version will also likely be increasingly delivered first as components or technologies targeted at vertical markets,' he said."
Just for a laugh. I mean, they're not mutually exclusive, are they?
Releasing OpenSolaris under GPLv3 might be a good strategic move. Right now GPLv3 is in limbo, with some projects moving to it and some not. The main purpose of GPLv3 is to try to stop submarine patents from the industry in general, but Microsoft in particular, from being used to undermine the process. So imagine Suse using GPLv2 competing against some other distro like RedHat, or Ubuntu, which has moved to GPLv3 for the code they contribute. They get the added value of swapping code with OpenSolaris, which has some really cool stuff and Sun gets the benefit of undermining MS's new strategy, which of course is as detrimental to Sun as anyone else, by making Suse Linux an outdated distro.
Perhaps we can get ZFS into Linux this way. However, with Linus's position about GPLv3...
is if they switch to a different kernel -- unless Linux and all the other copyright holders of the various bits and pieces of the kernel have changed their collective minds, the kernel is distributed under a modified GPL v2 -- the modification being that you can't distribute the kernel under anything but v2... (they removed the "or higher" verbiage.)
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
...you mean that they move to GPLv3 in the areas where they can -- i.e., non-kernel software that they develop on their own.
It's much too easy to think of "Linux" as being one thing with one license, and I need to stop thinking that way...
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Sun is the leading opensource contributer - page 51 according to the EU.
So this shouldn't come as a surprise.
Alex
Stallman Takes Control of Sun
Two minutes after applying GPL3 to OpenSolaris, Richard M. Stallman, pseudoprophet of the New Religion, exercising a deeply buried clause in GPL3, took control of the company.
"My version of reality, trumps yours," he stated, "And my version of Freedom is better for you, so, we have deprecated all other forms of freedom. The sooner you learn to accept that, the sooner we release you from your bonds. Now take your medicine."
President-For-Life of Cuba, Fidel "I'm-still-alive-dammit-don't-unplug-that" Castro called to congratulate the new CEO.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Consider the following points:
1. Most software that creates the userland for desktop users can run on Solaris as well as Linux, in the sense of using the kernels.
2. Businesses, which value stability, have watched the Linux kernel abandon the odd-even numbering system in favor of merging major changes into the 2.6 tree (I know there are pros and cons for this, but my money is on this not being a positive move in most commercial business eyes.)
3. The major lack for Solaris, from the user standpoint at least, is the driver support Linux now enjoys - if Solaris supported all the hardware Linux does and had a good/friendly install routine (haven't tried it myself), there would be little to choose between Linux and Solaris.
Now, how could GPLv3 help?
It's true the Linux kernel code, as such, could not be merged straight into Solaris. HOWEVER, key authors of the parts of Linux that actually are better could be contacted and asked if they would license their code for use in Solaris under GPLv3. The CDDL has not, so far, encouraged much of this activity as far as I know. GPL has "street cred" in terms of the open source population, and the key authors of the key parts unique to Linux might be convinced to help Solaris (which has its own bits of Truly Awesome Code).
Many of the arguments are similar to using GPL for Java. Solaris is already freely available and as such is not a direct revenue stream for Sun - the question is how to use it to Make Money in other venues. Now there are risks as well as rewards to being able to run Solaris on a wide variety of hardware, and Sun must make the calculation as to whether universal standardization/use of Solaris would promote their hardware as a very stable, powerful integrated core of a complete Solaris solution. This is not immediately clear, but is possible. Certainly, it would increase Sun's "visibility" in the marketplace, if they displace Linux as the major open source operating system. (I know, I know - the userland tools are what count most, but marketing doesn't seem to work that way.)
Another interesting question is whether the corporations who have made contributions to Linux in order to make it more usable for them might be inclined to work with Sun and Solaris if it becomes available under GPLv3. Corporations seem to be more comfortable working with other corporate entities, and GPL is a good "safeguard" against being taken to the cleaners.
I hope Sun does release a functioning Solaris under GPLv3, with the key parts (dtrace, ZFS, etc) included. I would certainly be interested in such a system, particularly if the key developers cooperate and the major Linux Goodies can be folded into it.
Interesting times.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Sun's meat and potatoes is their hardware, all decisions from the beginning go back to that basic tenant. Therefore it's in their best interest to get people to use Solaris which works well on Sparc. Sun has some pretty cool stuff, for example their new filesystem, zfs. Now if they were to release zfs as gpl v2, it could be used in linux, which doesn't help's Sun's bottom line(Sparc). If people use Solaris on x86 then that helps - Sun hopes those people will switch to Sparc. But given Torvalds not liking gpl v3, Sun can safely make Solaris, zfs, etc. GPL v3 and they won't have to worry about helping Linux much. The anti-patent provisions also throw a wrench in Microsoft's plans to use the patent wrench to stop open source.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
I prefer Linix-Watch's coverage.
(I hate e-week's site.)
Developers: We can use your help.
This will change things drastically. Solaris is a mature OS with some unique tools that could really benefit Free Software: DTrace, ZFS, etc. GPL licensed OS's would really benefit from this stuff. DTrace and ZFS will be included in Mac OS 10.5. But up until now they have been licensed under Sun's CDDL which is incompatible with the GPL.
If Linus ceases to be bull-headed and moves the kernel to GPLv3. The Sun move will be great, Gnu/Linux will be able to integrate these new tools. Sun will be able to use and improve GPL licensed tools more easily. Everyone wins. Except proprietary software developers and MS in particular.
What if Linus continues to be an ass and refuses to license the kernel under GPLv3? Free software developers who do not want their work to be used in DRM or hardware that locks the user out of their software will move towards Gnu/Solaris! The Samba team, Alan Cox, all the GNU projects could all shift focus to Solaris as the default kernel. There is already a Debian-based Gnu/Solaris and this could become the main focus of Debian work. Would Ubuntu Gnu/Solaris be far behind?
If the second case happens Linus could continue with GPLv2 only for the kernel and see the importance of Linux diminish or he could give in and license it under "GPLv2 or later" and contain the hemorrhage.
Interesting, interesting.
I would rather say: "another RedHat-like distribution". They want to promote it so it becomes next Enterprise Linux, finally.
Good idea, IMHO. Don't forget - now they merge it with Linux, taking best of both worlds without violating any licenses.
Hopefully Linux will also take something from Solaris.
Just my 2 cents...
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
I think you're underestimating just how much software the Free Software Foundation has copyright on: bash and the rest of the userland, GCC, etc. Considering that all GNU code will be moving to GPLv3, I think it's got quite a lot of traction whether Solaris uses it or not.
Of course, having Solaris too would be even better...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sun does not own the copyright to 100% of the source code that makes up (open)solaris.
/usr/include/*" is enough to tell you that.
There are some important pieces, such as sendmail, bind, etc, that somewhat rather obviously come from elsewhere.
A simple "grep -li university
Well, if Linux insists on staying at GPv2, then perhaps RMS will get behind the Nexenta/gnu-solaris project. Maybe someone in the know can explain (to me and others) whether this would meet the needs of a GNU operating system. While I am a *BSD user, I'd love to see a Linux-free GNU system take off. If for no other reason, Torvalds increasingly seems like an obstinate teenager. And to be snotty about, his kernel certainly does. I'll slip into my asbestos suit, so let it fly....
Does this mean there will be some way to fiddle with the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 licensing so we can get ZFS and DTrace into Linux?
Why bother merging with Linux...
Linux offers next to nothing important that isn't already implemented better in Solaris
Well assumedly this is what Sun would like -- if Solaris became the dominant kernel, rather than Linux, by moving to GPLv3 when Linux is stuck with v2.
In reality I think the opposite is more likely, Solaris Tools + GNU userland on a Linux kernel, but it's still fun to speculate. I don't really know enough about the Solaris kernel to make any claims of technical superiority or inferiority either way. I do think it would be neat, in some geek-ish way, to have another kernel...but most users are going to stick with whatever the majority uses.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
OpenSolaris under v3 makes it easier for code to go from the Linux kernel to OpenSolaris and not vice versa, which is good for Sun. A public corporate endorsement like this would spur adoption of v3.
Sun makes a big deal about adding licenses and not replacing them, so merely adding a v3 option to the CDDL one would do nothing for developers not wanting to help Tivoization a la Linux. In general, new contributors want to know their benefit in exchange for assigning copyright to Sun. Sun will have to appreciate the Tivoization issue as compromising their message to the community. Maybe after the license addition and enough (commercial) developers seeing the sky not falling with OpenSolaris under v3, Sun could comment on why using v3 and its exception clause cannot cover what they feel they need CDDL for.
On the whole, everyone should cut Sun some major slack. They seem to have been cooperating on issues of freedom more than other companies and even some projects such as the leading kernel developers.
Um... hardware support?
Ignore this signature. By order.
IANAL, but in general, you own the copyright on the code you have written until you explicitly assign the copyright to someone else (as in "I hereby assign copyright of this code to Foo").
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
The biggest problem is that it is really not that funny.
At least you will get a couple of mod points from the Stallman haters.
And now anyone who doesn't agree with you or enjoy their God being mocked is a zealot? Nice move... Hey, enjoy this mockery "I think your wife has a face like a horse"... ooops, I forgot, you are single... this is slashdot.
A non-anonymous source inside Sun, who just happens to be Sun's VP of Software, has refuted eWeek's rumor spreading.
This is great if you want to just use their applications.
But wake me up when they use a non-viral license.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
If they go with the kernel being 3 and as much as userland as possible-I'll switch that day. In fact I was going to sometime soon start dual booting just to get familiar with it.
Linux has had an astonishing run, but it's obvious neglecting legal and political reality in the kernel and not caring about patents or DRM (LT to be exact, because it is his call there) is going to seriously hamper things in the future. Pity. Oh well.
GPL 3 will address the *serious and now obvious* shortcomings of 2, and needed to be done a long time ago. No one knew way way back, but now that we do know, it is time to adapt or get wiped out. I prefer adapting rather than Linus flawed Ostrich strategy of sticking his head in the sand and playing make believe this stuff isn't happening all around him and going to get worse. If he can't (or won't) grok what is going on, again, his call. If Sun is smart enough to see that and follow through with their kernel then the opensolaris folks build something decent-I'm going with the smarter guys who have a better long range view and understand we can't let the IP buzzards and lawyers destroy folks hard work.
Debian won't officially endorse the project due to resistance to the CDDL license. The Nexenta FAQ explains the issue; licensing solaris under GPL3 gain acceptance.
I'll have 2 of whatever he/she had.
english is my first language, but my only formal education in it was from U.S. public schools, so you may forgive me for
Just how much of Ubuntu's innovation are actually tied to the Linux kernel?
My understanding is that Nexenta has imported a lot of Ubuntu code. It's still in alpha, meaning a number of issues related to meshing upstream solaris code need to be resolved. But essentially it is Ubuntu with a Sun kernel.
Re-licensing solaris will make life simpler for Nexenta developers in having changes endorsed by hardline-GPL upstream maintainers in debian.
How is that going to work? The second they incorporate a thirdy-party GPL library they loose they ability to legally distribute it under CDDL. Ten bucks says they give it a half hearted shot then announce they're dropping the CDDL version as it's too hard to pull off. Another 20 bucks says half of the Sun people working on this know that it's impossible to do and can't convince the other half. If anything is going to get forked in this scenario, it'll chunks of the CDDL version when Sun drops support for it.
Will you please answer this one question for me:
If you 'merge' SunOS (that is essentially the kernel) with a GPL-ed system (aside of the kernel), where in the system would Linux be left ?!
I've been reading a lot of comments to this rumour all over the place. And I think I can condense the opinions of Solaris users as follows :o
"Yes! This is great! Sun can take all it needs from Linux and we don't have to give a single thing back! We'll finally destroy those fuckers!"
Which, I think, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they really do get the whole free software thing and aren't just a bunch of breadhead cunts beholden to a particularly dumb and unattractive corporation whose only redeeming feature is the entertainment value of its twitching death throes.
This assumes, of course, that one doesn't actively prohibit v3, of course (;-))
---dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Even if Solaris gives other developers two options, GPL *or* their more BSD-ish license, things only flow to linux. Unless sun stops their own license, they can't take linux code and give people the option of not doing the GPL..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Stallman may be weird and near-impossible to deal with on a personal basis, but he has rarely if ever been wrong on the big issues. I like Linux, I really do; Gentoo is a joy to run and maintain, and I'm learning more every day. Long before Torvalds expressed his surprise at the resilience of the 2.6 kernel, I was amazed at how rarely it broke on me (read: never) considering the development model and policy. But I also agree with Stallman that GPLv2 does not protect free and open source software against new types of attacks via DRM and patent trolling, for the simple reason that most of these issues did not exist when it was drawn up.
When v2 was drafted and adopted, no one had any idea that computers would become media-playing devices, and the forms of DRM that the exponentially-increasing technology have made available today did not exist. The closest analog, and it was analog then, was the VCR vs Betamax debate. Who would have dreamed in 1989 that anyone would have a gigabyte of hard drive space or a gigahertz CPU or a video card that could pull more than 640x480x256 colors? Perhaps more importantly, who would have known media and software companies would become bloated, incestuous lovers with corrupt politicians to this extent? No one in the mainstream really took the idea of "information age" seriously in the late 80s, but a bare 15 years later, the Internet had connected virtually the entire world.
I don't anticipate Linus moving his kernel to GPLv3. I like him, but I don't like his politics. I realize that he created Linux as a hobby and a way onto the school network via his 386, but when you release something under the GPLv* it becomes a political football by default. If he wants to keep the kernel at v2, fine...if Solaris endorses v3 it will be a huge sea change across the FOSS world and I fully expect to see an industry shift if that happens. It's sad, because the Linux kernel has a wonderful, lively aura and a fast-paced dev "cycle," which I don't quite trust Solaris to keep alive, but all that means nothing if the license doesn't stop unscrupulous people from perverting the kernel into something which takes away freedoms.
And Stallman may finally be vindicated in his "It's GNU/Linux, dammit, Linux is just the kernel!" attitude when people boot into Nexenta and go "Hey, this looks like Linux!" Have faith, RMS...you will be proven right again, as you have time after time. Let's just hope Solaris doesn't become another Novell or, worse, Microsoft. Watch your back, Sun...I eagerly anticipate this, but I will drop you like a hot iron if you somehow manage to twist the GPLv3 into something abominable.
VC: "muskets." Perhaps that's the sound of revolution.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Umm so the only technology you would pick in a merged Linux OpenSolaris OS from the Linux half(quarter/little tiny bit) would be hardware device drivers most of which are not specifically Linux at all. Interesting, not sure what that says for the sum total of Linux development.
Its highly unlikely that you would end up with Solaris tools on a Linux kernel, for one thing a lot of Solaris tools are also OpenSource tools anyway (Gnome etc). Solaris's strength is its kernel which is well ahead of Linux in terms of capabilities the only thing the Linux as a kernel has over Solaris is a large HCL list which in itself isn't actually much to do with Linux.
Like for example KDE, which is new X graphical part of Solaris? ;)
Every system has something to offer. Even OS/2
It is at least one thing of which I know for certain Solaris lacks.
Note that I'm not a programmer, so what I notice are just the plainest things.
Ignore this signature. By order.