Oracle/Sun Enforces Pay-For-Security-Updates Plan

An anonymous reader writes "Recently, the Oracle/Sun conglomerate has denied public download access to all service packs for Solaris unless you have a support contract. Now, paying a premium for gold-class service is nothing new in the industry, but withholding critical security updates smacks of extortion. While this pay-for-play model may be de rigueur for enterprise database systems, it is certainly not the norm for OS manufactures. What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications."

Comments

Sidestep?

[TheRaven64]

What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications

The GPL doesn't prevent you from charging a fee for GNU software. It just stops you from preventing the people you sell it to from distributing it to everyone else. OpenSolaris is free and the source is available. If you are using Solaris (not OpenSolaris) then you are paying for a platform that has undergone some extra testing and comes with support guarantees. If this isn't important to you, then use OpenSolaris for free.

Re:Sidestep?

[flaptrap]

...and I quote (from gnu.org gpl-faq

        The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

        But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

        Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. ...and...

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Sidestepping Nothing

[CritterNYC]

They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise. The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries. They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL. The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed. The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed. As can the source for those bits, which Sun/Oracle is (presumably) making available as they always have to comply with the GPL.

So, they are sidestepping nothing.

Was to be exepected

[Midnight Thunder]

I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business. For me the Oracle web site is so convoluted that it stinks of 'we designed this so that you to pay use to find it'. Everything feels designed to nickle and dime everything you try doing with them. This is based on experience of having get specific updates to fix certain known issues. If you don't agree with my perspective, I would gladly appreciate hearing about your experience.

I am a Java developer and I hope that they don't extend this to Java or any other Sun technologies with a more 'open' culture.

Re:Just like Redhat

[jedidiah]

Oracle is redistributing the works of others... just as if they were passing around copies of msoffice.

Now of course something like that comes with legal complications.

Merely claiming that this is another case of "entitlement mentality" is dishonest and *ssinine.

Re:That's a nice server you got there

[ircmaxell]

Actually, that brings up a point. Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever? "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...? This isn't about feature updates (which they could justify charging for), it's about flaws in what they gave out... Now sure, you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream. But if that was the case, how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion?...

Re:That's a nice server you got there

[Zerth]

The part that says(slightly paraphrased for clarity) "this disclaimer may not be valid in some states and does not prevent you from exercising your rights, but hopefully confuses you enough that you don't realize you have any"

Re:That's a nice server you got there

[ircmaxell]

A contract to perform an illegal act is not a valid contract... Considering here the threat is that you can be attacked through the vulnerabilities that were provided in the original software package, I think the argument could be made that this is extortion. And if it is extortion, then they would become responsible for any damages occurring because of the extortion. So even though they disclaimed liability, they could still be held liable (If it is found to be extortion). The disclaimer of liability can been thrown out in cases of criminal negligence (If they installed a back door on your server and then exploited it, they would be liable for the damages regardless of what was in the license)... So it really doesn't matter in this particular case if you agreed to their terms or not so long as a court would agree that this is extortion...

Industry-wide needs to pro-consumer policy

[discojohnson]

All security updates should be free as in beer. Patches that include features are for-pay. It's not my fault they released a product with security holes. I love car analogies, and it works pretty good here.

As a industry best practice...

[Mr.Fork]

This goes back to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. A scorpion was travelling across the land when he came to a river. Wanting to get across, he approached a frog to help him get across.
The frog replied "Why should I help you across because you will sting me and we will both drown."

The scorpion said "I promise not to sting you."

They are half-way across the river then the scorpion is startled by a splash of water and stings the frog. The frog cries out as his body begins to paralyze "Fool! You have doomed us both as I predicted."

The scorpion replies "Fool? What did you expect Frog? I am a scorpion."

Oracle is a Scorpion. Anyone who thought otherwise when they purchased SUN is a fool.

Re:There's an easy solution to the GNU issue...

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm having trouble seeing what the big deal is here.

Oracle is building a successful business around open source software in the full spirit of the GPL. They must be destroyed at all costs .. oh, wait.