Slashdot Mirror
Sun Looks To GPL3 For Java, Solaris
daria42 writes "Sun is leaning toward changing the license for Java and Solaris to the GNU GPL version 3. The article has some insightful comments from Sun boss Jonathan Schwartz. '"Will we GPL Solaris? We want to ensure we can interact with the GPL community and the Mozilla community and the BSD community," he says.'"
GPL'ing stuff will make it difficult to "interact" with the BSD and Moz communities, unless by interact they mean "take stuff and put it in Solaris/Java"...
Flamewars aside, the BSD license is not workable for Suns Java. Firstly because of pre-existing commercial licensees and secondly because it would be resold as a proprietary product without Sun receiving any form of compensation. That's still possible under the GPL, it is however much kinder to Suns long term business interests in that regard.
Seems pretty normal for Sun to not be willing to give away years of hard work, without getting anything back.
This seems nothing more than a publicity stunt by Sun in order to gain attention and hopefully get some more people using their OS.
CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
d ID=23699&tstart=0
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threa
http://lwn.net/Articles/221543/
Somebody asked linus if he would be willing to put the license for the next kernel up to a vote. His reply was: "Sure, write your own kernel, license it how you want it, and see how many people use it."
Be careful what you wish for...
"Sun has now asked for our thoughts on moving the Solaris operating system to GPLv3 and what they would need to do to engage the free software developer community. Specifically, they see the advantages of creating a GNU system, utilising the kernel of Solaris."
Mac OSX tiger has most GNU software - gcc g++ emacs make wget nano.. etc. Does that make it a GNU distribution with mach microkernel?
Keep your face towards the sun, you'll never face the shadow.
First they're "bandwagon jumping", and then then later in the same sentence they're not trying to "play nice"? Well the fact that they're picking the same license as the majority of the Free Software community will be means that they actually are playing nice with everyone else.
It makes sense for Free Software developers to want the patent clauses in GPLv3. Who would want to get sued for patent infringement and then still allow the company that sued them to use software that they sued over in the first place?!
One more step along the way to Solaris becoming just another Linux distro... :-(
I used to think that GPL is the only way to go. I share my code, so why shouldn't others using my code (assuming they distribute software) have to share their modifications to it, as well?
Well, I've since found one good use for BSD-like licenses. They're good for situations where what you care about the most is that people are using your code. For example, I think some of the Vorbis code was released under BSD so that companies producing proprietary software would add Vorbis support, hopefully leading to widespread adoption of Vorbis.
They've dipped their toe in the Linux pool with the Novell deal. We know how MSFT operate and we know that Linux developers oppose the GPL3 provisions that prevent DRM. Is anybody else seeing this?
It makes no business sense for MSFT to fund NT development when Linux is available for free. Apple turned open source code to their advantage with OSX, an OS that is still real embarrassing for MSFT. Microsoft are predators, they've already drawn blood and are going to either own or destroy Linux.
Linus appears oblivious.
Utter tosh; you see far more people rejected the drafts because of the political DRM restrictions than are accepting it.
People who support the DRM provisions aren't nearly so vocal as those opposing it. Tivo-tisation was never what the GPL was about. It stands to reason that GPL3 will fix such holes.
I'd be interested to see if this might result in things like zfs being ported natively to the Linux kernel (rather than the current FUSE-based solution).
But then... if Sun go for GPLv3, I'm not certain that can coexist within the same kernel as a bunch of GPLv2 code.
When you have to think, GPL ? You're Dead, Jim . Just do it and go make something else that maybe people would buy
I wonder,
Now that Java is OpenSource, and that it has bindings to both GTK (as in SWT) and QT (as in Jambi), will we see it on more desktop applications? I'm asking because I feel that Java is a better choice than C#, because of its extensive libraries and frameworks.
Also, Java is already a major player on the server side, if KDE and Gnome had a better integration with it than Windows... it would be a major push for the adoption of a FOSS Desktop...
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
As an end-user, I'm rather interested to see the first Java packages included in Linux distros... well maybe there already is, but not in the distro I use. I want to see an RPM added to the respositories and the horrible GNU/Java implementation removed forever.
It seems they may be entertaining the idea of keeping the code under the CDDL and dual-license it under the GPL, v3. I think it would be much more productive to skip the CDDL and switch entirely to GPLv3, as there are three big problems with keeping the CDDL:
For example, OpenSolaris on the SPARC can't be built from source today (nearly two years after it became available under the CDDL), because they lack an open source disassembler (yes, they need a disassembler, it's due to how the kernel debugger works). A well known and proven disassembler exists in the GNU binutils, ported to just about every useful processor type there is. OpenSolaris, I am told, wouldn't be able to use that, because it isn't dual-licensed under the CDDL and is unlikely to ever be.
For the obvious example of how GPL:d code is much more attractive and increases the rate of adoption even in cases when technically more advanced alternatives exist, consider that the BSD UNIX kernel never really took off in the way Linux has, even though in the early 90's the BSD kernel had an absolutely overwhelming technical lead at the time.
Much of the confused discussion on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list (warning: it takes days to read this and you don't particularly want to) could have been avoided, had the participants read David A. Wheeler's recently updated essay Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else. and been at least vaguely familiar with the Free Software philosophy.
So what is it about the GPL that makes developers want to use it? I can't speak for others, but in my own case it boils down to this: in 1985, when I first came across the GPL, I thought about the matter and decided that the inheritance of my life-time software development work to future generations should not be that of a jail built out of proprietary source code. This excludes the BSD-type licenses, as they allow someone else to take away one or more of the four freedoms I've worked hard for to establish at every opportunity. (Even then, it was not always possible, unfortunately.)
On the other hand, the only reason I can see why developers may want to use BSD-type licenses are that they want to deny others one or more of the four freedoms, or need to be able to. If you are one of these developers, maybe you will reconsider your position on this some day when it is financially possible for you. It is now easier than ever.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
You know some people don't like GPL3 because the DRM Restriction crosses the line between, software freedom and telling the programmers what the can and can't program. A lot of people believe that software development freedom should go both ways, Freedom for the users and freedom to the developers. After spending many months developing a good program that I think people will find useful, I should be able to choose I want people people to use my work. Sometime I may want them to pay for it, and not have them see the source. Other times I may want to release it under an Open Source license, where it could benefit the community. Now with DRM restrictions in GPL3 it is saying that I do not have the rights to protect my own work even the work I choose not to share, and make it work with software that I may choose to share. Now even DRM on GPL2 is difficult because people can see your source and find a way to disable it. But saying you cant just puts salt in the wounds, even if we don't like or agree with DRM we just don't like saying we can't program that.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The dispute really centres over the emotive and overtly political language in which the first ever version of GPLv3 was written. It's not possible to eliminate politics altogether, because software licencing is a political issue; but there's a difference between a manifesto (which sets out your ideals) and a constitution (which seeks to uphold them). As far as the FSF are concerned, (1) not sharing is as bad as stealing, (2) using artificial means to keep somebody from sharing is bad, and (3) owners of hardware devices which are based on firmware covered under the GPL need to be granted all the privileges afforded them by the GPL, specifically the ability to upload modified firmware into said hardware. Those (manifesto) issues are what they want to get into the licence (which is more like a constitution).
Having seen more than one draught of the licence, I think the language is being toned down. The ultimate goal should be that the only people to be dissuaded by its wording from using it, are the very ones who seek to do something which it would forbid. I also think -- well, I hope -- that the FSF are smart enough to figure a way around the purported incompatibilities betwen GPLv2 and v3 before the final release of GPL version 3.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
They benefit from the commodization of the complementary product (software).
FRA: STFU GTFO
Am I missing something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Operating_Sy
when considering GPLv3 for Solaris is to contact the actual authors of key parts of the Linux kernel that they would be interested in incorporating and sound out their willingness to license those parts under v3.
The Linux kernel as a whole is indeed copyright by many people, some of whom are not keen on GPLv3, but what is critical for Solaris is not the WHOLE kernel but the parts which are in fact better than Solaris. The obvious ones are drivers and file system support, but I imagine there are others as well. The point, however, is that Solaris doesn't NEED all of the Linux kernel code. They could only benefit from a few key parts, and the authors of those parts might be convinced to see things differently than Linus and company.
If I were Sun, what I would be doing is a) waiting for the final GPLv3 while being very active in the process of developing the license b) quietly contacting key individual authors of parts of the Linux kernel that would benefit Solaris, sounding out their attitude to see how much code would be available if they did make the switch, and c) putting an in-house team on a Linux vs. Solaris evaluation to determine the major lacks of Solaris and how they might be addressed internally, assuming no Linux code will be usable.
The Free Software Foundation's support is not necessarily a guarantee of OS kernel success (*cough*HURD*cough*) but if all FSF code goes GPLv3 and Solaris follows suit being the new favorite development platform of the GNU toolchain will have to have some benefits.
I'd say the biggest key for Solaris is "what can GPLv3 do for me?" And the biggest immediate factor there is how many of the current Linux kernel authors with desirable code would be willing to consider accommodating Sun by releasing under GPLv3. If they won't, then the question becomes how many new developers could they attract, and that's a much harder question to answer.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The article has some insightful comments...
I know the editors have infinite mod points but modding the article insightful before any comments are posted is just cheating!
:(){
"So what is it about the GPL that makes developers want to use it? I can't speak for others, but in my own case it boils down to this: in 1985, when I first came across the GPL, I thought about the matter and decided that the inheritance of my life-time software development work to future generations should not be that of a jail built out of proprietary source code. This excludes the BSD-type licenses, as they allow someone else to take away one or more of the four freedoms I've worked hard for to establish at every opportunity. (Even then, it was not always possible, unfortunately.)"
"On the other hand, the only reason I can see why developers may want to use BSD-type licenses are that they want to deny others one or more of the four freedoms, or need to be able to. If you are one of these developers, maybe you will reconsider your position on this some day when it is financially possible for you. It is now easier than ever."
I don't mean to be rude but seeing as how most users don't give a rats ass about the four freedoms I don't see why this is such a big draw for most developers. The recent Slashdot study on the software markets of 3rd world countries drove this point home even further. In the US and Europe where proprietary software is expensive, people opt for it over free software anyways. And in third world countries where both proprietary and free software are the same price (about $2 a CD) folks STILL opt for the proprietary stuff. Why? Because its easier to use. All this software freedom stuff is a nice dream but its irrelevant if regular users don't even care because the stuff is harder to use and has crappy interfaces. I run Kubuntu and as advanced as that is the default UI looks like Windows 2000 did back when it first came out. Its 2007 now. I honestly feel like I'm stepping back in time whenever I use that machine.
As an open source developer I would be mighty discouraged to learn that folks would rather shell out a few hundred bucks instead of using free software. It would make me ask myself "what the hell is wrong with our stuff that it can't even compete for free against a very costly competitor?" Unless you are going to tell me that software should be free if only for the developers. Whats the point of software only used by developers? I thought the whole point of the Free Software movement was to liberate everyone, meaning mostly users, and not just developers. How does it feel to be part of a revolution where literally no one but the people running the revolution shows up and the regular folk go about their business ignoring your calls to action?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
As Sun is a hardware manufacturer I think this could make a massive difference to adoption of an open source operating system and to Sun's bottom line - I hope they do this. Part of the problem with GNU/Linux is that a lot of manufacturers (like HP) "do" GNU/Linux, but they are too scared of Microsoft to "do" it properly. Sun doesn't have a notebook product range though, but maybe with a lot of people wanting GNU/Solaris that might change.
Most of the games and software for mobile phones runs on JavaME. To protect software there are DRM features but surely if Java goes GPLv3 support for these DRM functions will have to cease.
It seems to me that by far the largest benefit to Sun from GPL'ing Solaris would be to gain the ability to import driver code from Linux. They can't do that since Linux is forced to stay at version 2 because of its lack of an "or later" clause or a clear owner.
If Sun changes Java's license to GPL3, will Novell be able to distribute java?
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Using GPLv3 for Solaris likely would preclude Linux programmers from using Solaris software, and vice-versa.
Is there any evidence that GPLv3 and GPLv2 licenses are going to be incompatible with one another? I don't see any reason why they should be. In the worst case, GPLv3 might contain an exception, or Sun could easily choose a GPLv3 licenses with a v2 exception.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It looks to me like Sun is going for an open source license, but not actually an open source project. What I mean by that is that, while the code is published under the GPLv3, Sun retains special commercial licensing rights to the codebase.
What are the consequences? First of all, they have a special commercial interest in the codebase, they have an interest in making sure that others can't use the codebase commercially, and they can set the future direction for Java in ways that's in accordance with their own corporate interests. Furthermore, from a practical point of view, it means that any open source contributor will have to give a commercial license to Sun if he wants his contributions to become incorporated into the official distribution.
All things being equal, I think that makes Linux and the other open source Java projects preferable to Sun because those are really 100% open source projects, with no special commercial rights reserved for some companies and not others.
Note that, in contrast to Sun, IBM's Java efforts, being under the Apache license, are true open source projects, because IBM doesn't have special commercial rights compared to other users of the code.
Sun should have gotten rid of McNealy 5 years ago. I suspect that had they done so, Java would be the only language to use on the net and .nyet would simply be a memory. McNealy has made enemies of the very ppl that were buying his products.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A distribution of GNU utilising the kernel of Solaris would certainly receive at least as much support (from the FSF) as GNU with the kernel Linux," [FSF Executive Director Peter] Brown said.
What an amazing vision of the future^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlast October.
You really shouldn't lose karma just because you have a different opinion. Karma loss should ideally be attributed to posts that abuse the forum system---nothing else. Instead, what is often seen here on slashdot (and other places) is moderation abuse where posts are moderated down just because a moderator disagreed with the post. This widespread moderation abuse is blatant disrespect for a civilized debate or conversation, and should not be accepted by anyone. We all suffer because of it.
"but you will likely not see "one license to bind them all".
:)
On the contrary, I expect to see several.
Too many forget how much Sun is suffering from not responding to the Linux kernel several years ago. A big price now is the management problem they have got to catch up. Investing more money into this problem is not good enough; a miracle of sorts is needed.
If the superficial public discussions are anything to go by, Sun does not have the right process underway to make OpenSolaris under GPLv3 pay off for them. The resistance to the GPL is inevitable and natural. Sun may indeed succeed in spite of dwindling *Solaris, but unless they improve their tactics, why waste more time on *Solaris?
The position statement betrays some denial about the management problem. What some of the OpenSolaris devs characterize as FUD is really just indifference to the goodies they like to brag about. They fail to understand that bragging in this case is a double-edged sword, just as the position statement itself is; people turn whatever envy they might have not into a revelation about *Solaris paradise but instead into simple inspiration to copy whatever good ideas are left to make *Solaris worth discussing in the present tense.
I have a lot of sympathy with your complaint. But licenses are essential for the governance and coordination needed for open source contributors to work together. We can't (for the most part) command through hierarchies or provide financial incentives. The license represents the common ground or consensus achieved by constributors; without it, they would be unlikely to participate.
Political scientist Steven Weber has called the license a "de facto constitution . . . One way to manage complexity is to state explicitly (in a license or constitution) the norms and standards of behavior that hold the community together." So these debates aren't just about the license; they're about the rights of participants, how they see the community, governance, and so on.
Different licenses produced different software. We argue this when we suggest that closed-source software is more likely to have hidden bugs. Weber discusses Apache, for example, and says:
I said I sympathized though, and I do. Politics is no fun. Seeing people who share your goals making (what you believe to be) tragic political mistakes is no fun either. Unfortunately, the fragmentation of the community, the potential for code forks, and so on are part of what hold it together. There's no perfect solution. Though so far the open source solution has proved to be pretty good - one of the best even.
(Weber's book is The Success of Open Source. It's fantastic. My quotes are from pages 179 and 62-63.)
Please cease and desist engaging in blatantly populist, prostitutional behaviour. It is deeply unbecoming, and reveals that as a company, you are largely devoid of self-respect.
More seriously, I wish people in general would stop trying to curry favour with the FSF and the associated cultists. Apart from anything else, it causes the FSF and said supporting cultists to continue to hold the unfortunate delusion that they're actually important, when the reality is that people generally do it merely in order to vainly attempt to shut the FSF up. It's exactly the same strategy of appeasement that Neville Chamberlain tried to use with Hitler, and we all know how well that worked out.
Trying to appease tyrants never works; it simply causes them to believe that you're afraid of them and thus that they can abuse you more. Capitulating to Stallman's tyranny isn't the answer...the answer is to firmly and collectively tell him to take a running jump.
The Blu-Ray format uses Java as an integral part of the DRM scheme, if I remember correctly. Given the restrictions in GPL3 against this sort of thing, does it then mean the Blu-Ray format is doomed from incompatible licensing?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I didn't know which to respond to. I happen to think that if you slap a license on it it's not free, GPL, BSD whatever it has some sort of restriction on it. The only free software I've seen is public domain, like libTom for example. And if I ever get around to creating some free software I will do just that, public domain... but for now I a greedy control freak just like all the other Free software folks.
It is perfectly possible that Linus all along just want access to the derived software, and don't care about the ability to use said software on the hardware it was originally bundled with.
Well, there's a fine line between disagreeing with most of the people here and flamebait. So I occasionally hold my tongue just to see if it's possible. I almost always have 'excellent' karma, so I'm not real worried about that. Uselessly antagonizing the teeming hoards at Slashdot... Not usually worthwhile.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Try putting a multithreaded app under truss on Solaris. Watch the app keep working, although maybe a bit slower. Now try doing the same on Linux with strace. Watch the app deadlock on mutexes, watch threads die unexpectedly, etc.
Compared to the stability of Solaris no matter how you try to fuck with it, Linux might as well be M$ code.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
We'll see if RMS is actually able to craft a license that puts Novell in violation.
... and then when the few that do go that direction actually accomplish it, the copyright owners will have to issue "cease and desist" letters with specifics on violations. And such violations will have to be based on specific patents (if we're talking about targetting deals like the MS-Novell covenant.)
But don't expect to see anything anytime soon.
There really isn't much of a groundswell of software projects poised to go with GPL v3: there are only 375 GNU projects listed on the FSF site that are actually under "free" licenses and not all of those are GPL
In other words, I wouldn't hold your breath for any action against Novell, even after GPL v3 is released.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line