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

That's a nice server you got there

[bigredradio]

It would be a shame is something was to happen to it.

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:Just like Redhat

[Anonymous Coward]

o rly?

http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/

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.

Re:Just another step...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference - it used to be you needed a contract to use their patch update manager (and one contract covered all machines), but not just download individual patches or patch clusters (which, BTW, are integrated into the latest full OS downloads, and in fact at least one Sun person I've seen has recommended just grabbing the latest full OS download and using that to apply updates!). Now, not only do you need a contract, but you need one for each machine and OS version separately, and you can't actually buy the contracts from Oracle anyway. There's NO way to purchase them online (in fact the one link that's been posted multiple times as "I've verified this works" by Sun/Oracle people takes you to the Oracle 404 page), and when you leave your name with the pre-sales people to have sales call you, you don't get called back (since there's no way to actually talk to a sales person directly).

I suspect that Oracle is doing everything they can to passively kill Solaris without admitting it, that way they can say it wasn't their fault (or plan all along) when the regulators and shareholders come asking questions... If I had my choice, I'd be off Solaris completely, but at least for right now I don't. What's really interesting is what this is going to do to all those proprietary software vendors who require Solaris as the server OS for software used in regulatory compliance-audited environments. Since no patching = non-compliance, the ripple-effect is gonna be HUGE...

Re:Just like Redhat

[harmonise]

o rly?

O'Reilly is over here: ftp://ftp.oreilly.com/