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.'"

Comments

Re:Huh?

[pato101]

This stupid license wars is slowing Linux and FOSS community and serves NO FUCKING PURPOSE!
You are completely wrong. License is a key feature of FOSS, and provides the developer which is the freedom of her work
roughly, IMHO,
BSD: the world has the freedom to do whatever: companies like it- not only to use the code but to provide FOSS modules as well!
GPL: the user won't loose the freedom to keep using the work made by the programmer.
Which is better? depends strongly on the programmers intention about the software she is releasing. She has put a lot of effort on that, so she may have an opinion of which is the allowed use of her code.
Saying it is stupid, is selfish as you seem to be thinking only in the present day with the present apps, which seem you have not developed, have you?

That's a reasonable choice

[velco]

Seems pretty normal for Sun to not be willing to give away years of hard work, without getting anything back.

Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDD

[anandpur]

CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3

http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?thread ID=23699&tstart=0
http://lwn.net/Articles/221543/

Not too long ago....

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Aladrin]

You lose karma because people believe you are wrong. FOSS is about choice and freedom, and license is one of those choices. You are essentially saying that they are stupid for believing in what they do.

I'm a huge fan of the BSD license. Nothing says freedom like lack of restrictions.

But lately, I've begun to see the draw of the GPL license. I've never had an issue with the LGPL, as it does what I think the GPL should: It makes certain that code improvements are returned to the community. The GPL tries to make additional code belong to the community, too, though.

So you cannot kill this 'license war' without killing the FOSS community, too. They're the same thing.

If it makes you feel better, you can think of them as GPL and BSD communities instead of a single FOSS community.

Interesting point

[babbling]

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.

Re:Interesting point

[Tim C]

Both are now in Microsoft Windows with nothing more than a credit line to the original developers buried somewhere.

So what? Given that a network stack is a fundamental part of a modern operating system, and that poorly written, incompatible and vulnerable network stacks would degrade the entire network for everyone on it, surely it's better that MS used a tried and tested stack rather than going it alone and producing a buggy, not quite compatible version of their own?

Besides which, it was clearly the intention of the authors in using the licence that it could be used in closed-source products, and MS are complying with the letter and the spirit of the licence; "use it as you see fit, just credit us".

Has this any implications for the Linux kernel?

[jimicus]

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.

Java as a first class citzen on FOSS Desktops

[vhogemann]

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...

Re:What a load of FUD

[squiggleslash]

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.