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"...
Seems pretty normal for Sun to not be willing to give away years of hard work, without getting anything back.
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...
How is GPL3 "the same license as the majority"? Utter tosh; you see far more people rejected the drafts because of the political DRM restrictions than are accepting it.
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.
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.
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.
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 GPL3 is not the same license as the majority because it hasn't been released yet. There is no other reason. Nobody has rejected it because there is nothing to reject.
The entire process is being driven by consensus. The DRM stuff is in there because regardless of the views of a vocal minority, most people interested in Free Software are well aware that software is not free if someone can simply define it as an "Access Control Mechanism" and then use the DMCA to tear apart anyone who changes that code in a way they don't like. The "signatures" thing is in there because regardless of the views of a vocal minority, most people interested in Free Software are well aware that software you cannot use in any modified form except those signed-off by a hardware manufacturer is not free.
And I might hazard a guess that the primary reason why Torvalds is being to vocal in winging about both of the above has to do with the amount of work he'd need to do to change the license in the first place, given his lack of forethought in neither adopting the "or later version" clause, or any alternative that would make it easy to upgrade the license to one similar in spirit without the active support of every single person who has ever made a "contribution", no matter how small, to the Linux kernel.
Either way, I'm not seeing much evidence that, outside of the Linux kernel, there's much rejection of GPL3 at all. And I am seeing much of the Free Software community who rejected GPL2 seeing GPL3 as a much better alternative. That's the aim, after all, to try to get a license that suits almost everyone who believes in Copyleft, and to end the current, insane, license forking that causes so much damage.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually, I see the potential differently. Consider ---
For years the GNU folks have tried to point out that Linux is just a kernel and the system should be referred to as GNU/Linux. They've been largely unsuccessful because there is no alternative (GNU/Hurd isn't really there).
Now along comes Sun offering the Solaris kernel which would allow for GNU/Solaris.
Add to this that the SCO lawsuit was based on IBM contributing code to the Linux kernel (though they probably tried to include samples from GNU tools), Microsoft working with Novell to patent protect users of the the Linux kernel (haven't heard MS say anything about the GNU tools), and we have business concerned again about Linux legalities.
Sun, however, will claim original or approved authorship of all of Solaris (as early Unix licensees), thus making GNU/Solaris potentially less risky in the eyes of the business community. I would think Sun would prefer the separation of Solaris (on Sun hardware) from Solaris (on Intel hardware) and probably wouldn't have an issue with it being referred to as GNU/Solaris, IMHO.
And, if Sun does it right and continues improvements in Project Looking Glass, then GNU/Solaris with a 3D desktop built on GPL3-Java could have an impact not only on Windows but also potentially OSX. I wonder how many video card manufacturers would be willing to work with Sun for drivers for GNU/Solaris?
All in all, this could push Linux (GNU/Linux) off the front burner. Could be interesting.
I said he was whining, not that he merely had an opinion and that any opinion constitutes whining. There is nothing in my comment that constitutes calling "having an opinion" whining, and if you read that, then you need glasses.
As for whining, that's what he's doing. He's making up excuse after excuse, complaining that GPLv3 is somehow overbearing compared to its predecessor when, in reality, it is cut from exactly the same cloth and merely closes a few loopholes. His complaint that, in some way, TiVo using signatures to close its hardware and its code is in some way what he wanted all along is a completely ridiculous position - if you want that, you don't make your code copyleft. His complaints about DRM have no basis in anything the draft license says.
Torvald's inability to posit a position consistant with the aims and effects of the license he chose, claiming GPL2 is somehow not the copyleft license it is intended to be, shows me that his positions are completely insincere, and this realistically is more excuse making, presumably because of his shortsighted decision not to ensure there was a process for upgrading the license in the future.
Yes, it's whining. If he had a strong legitimate point, I'd say it was merely having an opinion. But he doesn't. He's saying his choice of a strict copyleft was right, yet complaining that the loopholes within it that completely undermine the entire point of making it copyleft are, in some way, desirable. He's full of shit, and not for the first time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.