Slashdot Mirror
Sun to release Solaris source code
According to this story on ZDNet, Sun has decided to release the Solaris Source code under their SCSL (Sun Community Source License). It seems Sun wants to copy the success story of Linux. What do you think about it?
The trouble is that a lot of people are going to mistake this for a real open source release. In some ways, it's the nightmare scenario that RMS has been trying to warn ESR of, though I don't think his methods for combating it are the most effective: most people out there still think "free software" means gratis, not libre.
So, how can we spread the word? How can we let people know:
This is a pretty complex message, and getting across even the simplest ones is difficult. How shall we tackle it?
--
Xenu loves you!
that /. posted a 'what if' story about that yesterday, and today Sun does it.
--
-- Out of cheese error! Redo from start.
What'll happen here is that any "nice" parts of Solaris (and I'm so angry with Solaris lately that I can't think of a one) will be assimilated into Linux and the other open source OS projects.
Reasoning: If you thought getting started with Mozilla was tough from a learning-curve point of view, just imagine how tough it would have been on a much larger scale (like this is). Besides, anyone out there interested in doing operating systems development is already likely working on Linux, and I can't see any compelling reason to switch over to working on Solaris. After all, linux's success was a right-place-at-right-time occurance as much as anything else.
Besides, Sun's instituting Yet Another License, which is always discouraging to those of us who think that the GPL is still the only really honest way to go in terms of open source licensing.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Solaris surely represents a couple of billion dollars worth of intellectual property. Sun's preparedness to give this away at the click of a mouse makes you ask "what is the value of a technology company"?
To me, Sun are saying that source code is worthless without the ability to support that code, to evolve it and to use it to provide value to their customers.
So the value in buying Solaris is not in Solaris per-se, but in the people at Sun.
Or maybe I'm just up myself and they want to sell more hardware. It's important to know whether the x86 version will be available.
I use Solaris, Linux, and *BSD almost every day, and I can't say that this does anything to really change the way I feel about Solaris.
I tend to use Solaris in situations where I either have to have it for commercial applications, or places where I REALLY want Sparc hardware (which is very nice to work with in a server environment). And I use it because it works well and is rock solid.
However, with Linux, and to a lesser extent *BSD (NetBSD in my case), I don't just use it; I feel like I OWN it. It's mine and no one can a) take it away; b) Change it to where I can't stand to use it any more; or c) go out of business and leave my OS of choice unsupported. I'll never have that feeling with Solaris, since it isn't free; either in cost or in the way it's developed.
This sense of ownership has been the prime reason why I've used Linux as my primary desktop for over 4 years, even before there were any hints of good application software or decent emulators.
my 2 cents..
jf
If you sign up for the SCSL stuff, please don't *ever* contribute to Linux. The SCSL is basically a non-competition clause, so the lawyers will easily skewer Linux if it is contributed to by someone who signed up for the SCSL. Not that they would win, but who can afford the legal fees?
Of course access to the source helps in the short term developing exploits, but as quickly as those exploits appear in open source they are fixed, making the code stronger. Its a bit of short term pain for long term gain. In closed source such exploits can exist in code for years before anyone finds them, and generally it takes a lot longer for closed source vendors to fix the problems and distribute them once the exploits are publicized.
For those interested in conspiricy theory, here's another possible reason for Sun to make source viewable. Consider this...
Sun release the source, and almost definitly, many linux people being curious hackers, will look around, to see how things work. Then, one of them at a later date includes a patch for improvement in the kernel, which Sun attempt to claim is using copyrighted code from their source. It could be impossible to claim "clean room" situation, if they have looked at it, and even if it wasn't true, it would be a major hassle.
This is actually more likely than you think, as I'm sure Linux is still missing some features that Solaris has, so the possibility of a patch including that feature would be subject to closer investigation. Consider scalability, say a patch is included that makes Linux more scalable, and a lot of the kernel is rewritten to take accord of the new structure/spinlocks, whatever. Then Sun contest that the scalability is theirs, and the kernel has to backtrack. (even if they lost, the impact could be major)
It might sound scarey, but it would be well worth considering the worst case, before looking at Sun's source, especially if you may add something to linux at a later date. If this happened, it could seriously slow, or scupper Linux development, if you have to keep looking over your shoulder at Sun.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
What is funny is that we've returned to the late 60's/early 70's. Back then the manufacturer GAVE you copies of their OS so it would ease THEIR maintenance problems. You had the code. If you could fix it...you did, then gave them the results to share with other users.
Linux (GPL/BSD) goes beyond this though with the viral nature and not locking things up in copyright, so you can use the code as a base for other work.
So I don't see the big deal in praising Sun for doing something IBM use to do 30 years ago.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
We could even explain it to NT people by comparing it to NT permissions of None, Change, Full Control, and Read, in that order. (For those unfamiliar, the main difference between change and full control is that the latter can change permissions/owners, the former can't)
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I've read the SCSL in breif, and was quite pleased to see this step forward for Sun. Releasing Solaris code will help them to strengthen their operating system, and will allow individual users to effect bug-fixes for their own needs.
;-)
It will not create an Open Source effort out of Solaris, but that's OK. Closed-source is a business model that deserves to compete toe-to-toe with open source. Solaris is a very nice operating system in a lot of ways (though I have little respect for their suite of tools and utilities). It does do threading in a way that I think is genius. It handles multi-processor SPARC systems in ways that Linux and the *BSDs should aspire to.
Bravo Sun! One small step for Sun; one giant leap for Solaris.
If this works out, perhaps they will see the value of going completely GPL and sucking in code from the Linux kernel. Then the waters will get very muddy!
I'd like to make some points:
*) Sun's SCSL license is not open source, nor trying to be.
*) Not all the source code will be made available straight away. Like with their other stuff released under the SCSL, you'll only have to pay Sun money if you plan to make a profit on it yourself. Sun also require you to fully publish the specs for any new APIs you add, and are very hard on compatability - ie they don't want it corrupted/code forked. btw, you will need Sun's compilers to compile it, and they haven't (yet) made the compilers SCSL.
*) I don't think this is really aimed at the general public (of coders) - it's mostly aimed at commercial compains who currently want to liscence Solaris to make their own products, and there are a few, and also at developers who already use Solaris.
*) I think the two main advantages they hope to gain from this is more developer interest, and better quality software - by getting better feedback. The reliability of Solaris is very important to Sun - there are managers whose salary and bonus are tied to it's reliability.
*) This is part of Sun's relatively new, general attitude towards development - first with Java last year, some of their microprocessor designs, some high end software (Sun Cluster Tools 3), Star Office, new software (Jini and Jiro) and now Solaris. I've heard it said that Sun plan to make all their software available under the community source unless there is a good reason not to.
*) Sun have very good reasons to worry about protecting their software - Microsoft would love to damage Sun, like it did Netscape.
*) The descision to go with their "community source" lisence would not be new. Sun have very long lead times on development for Solaris, and because Solaris contains quite a lot of other people's IP (which they'd have to get a new lisence for, or do their own version) as well as tidy up the source for public release, they would have to make the descision very early in the product cycle. Solaris 8 (which will be the first to have some source code freed) went into alpha about 1 year ago, and has probably been in code freeze for about 3-6 months, and it'll be released in about 4-6 months. And Sun aren't even adding that many new features with Solaris 8. Co-incidentally (probably not), when Solaris first went into alpha, was about the time I first head Sun execs talking about making Solaris open source.
*) Some people have said that Sun might be worried about Linux, or Project Montetery wiping them out or something. Currently, as with the past few years, Sun has been having very stable and reliable growth (20-25% per year) and I haven't seen the slightest indication that they're "hurting" from Linux (the opposite in fact) and Monterey isn't even finished yet, and even at best won't take off for another 2 years.
Btw, what's new in Solaris 8 you might ask? Well, they're putting in their cluster tools software as standard (currently a seperate product), doing IPv6, including perl (perl 5.0005_03 to be precise) as well as some modules to access parts of Solaris, some bits for Java, new diagnostics tools and such. btw, Sun will support everything that comes with Solaris for 5 years after they stop selling it.
Again, we have many posts from people speculating about Sun's motives. I really have to wonder what kind of effect Oliver Stone has had on people.
Can we at least ACKNOWLEDGE some things here?
1) Sun is going to be opening up the source to their *FLAGSHIP PRODUCT*. Does anyone grasp what kind of step that IS? People are getting pissy about it NOT being a GPL, or Sun controlling the modifications that get added back into it. So WHAT? Would people rather they not do any of this? What would people gain?
2) Sometimes, centralized control is a GOOD thing. Linus keeps control of what goes into the Linux kernel (to generalize a bit), and this is a good thing- because who better than Linus to judge what modifications are good and what are going to break things, or what mods are just plain stupid? What is the difference between one person and an organization doing so? Is it actually so wrong for Sun to want to try to avoid some keener rewriting a piece of the kernel using MMX asm? Fine, every monkey who knows how to 'gcc hello.c' has the right to alter things the way he likes it, but does that same person have an automatic right to influence the executables that *I* run on *MY* system?
3) Not being accepted into the main source tree does not necessarily stop you from publishing your own mods. Fine, you didn't make it into the real tree. Publish a patch on your website. Let the public decide how useful the thing is.
4) Sun may be releasing the source to Solaris because... wait for it!... they think letting the public at the source is a GOOD idea! Whoa! No diabolical plans toward world domination. No teams of assassins waiting to "retire" RMS or ESR as soon as the public's attention is diverted. Can't something just be what it seems to be? Are there always secret plots behind everything? Scott McNealy has usually been vocal and forthright, sometimes even to his own detriment.
5) This whole source thing MAY NOT HAPPEN. There's a lot of stuff in Solaris which Sun doesn't personally own, and they might not have the right to open the guts of those items to the world.
There's more to say, but I don't think it would matter. Sun is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'll leave people to return to their regularly-scheduled evil plot weaving.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
It's amazing to me that the folks here are so willing to bash Sun mercilessly for taking a bold and quite significant step here.
Most people here act as if Sun wanted to control everything - look at their history:
- Bill Joy wrote Bekeley Unix, the first widespread implementation of a "source available" modern OS. One can make a good argument that without this impetus, Unix (and yes, Linux is a Unix) could not possibly exist as we know it today.
- Sun built and promoted NFS, which created the entire modern concept of reading/wrinting files over the network as if they were local. Then they did not try to make this proprietary, but made licenses available to all comers, even their competitors - unheard of at the time. This last time around, they made sure to involve many people from outside Sun in setting the NFS v3 standards.
- After falling into proprietary-think with NeWS and OpenLook/OpenWin, they realized their mistake (to their credit) and returned to the NFS model with the introduction of Java. Even that license has recently been opened up significantly, and now no longer requires improvements to be returned to Sun. (The only reason for that provision in the first place was to ensure the the entire community benefited from what anyone added, and was not a proprietary lock, but a non-proprietary lock.)
- Now, Sun is opening the source to very significant software products, Solaris and StarOffice.
It's true that Sun retains some control, but their motive, as shown repeatedly over time, is one of promoting consistency, not control. (Although the rise of Microsoft has pushed them back towards control - reasonably enough, they don't want competitors to take Sun's IP and club them over the head with it.)
In general, there may be some reasons to be wary of Sun, but their past actions show that they have been good stewards. Perhaps they should be given a chance before bashing them.
Sun's desire for "control" in each and every case can be shown to be a desire to ensure that their vision of computing can be carried out, and not co-opted by others with more proprietary intentions. Sun almost single-handedly revolutionized the computer industry by opening things up. unfortunately, most of the objectors I see speaking here are doing so from a position of arrogance and ignorance. Bother to learn the facts before you flame, and keep an open mind, for open source is no good without one.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Yes, Sun is trying to profit off of the confusion between SCSL and a real open source license, as others have mentioned, and so we need to do some education to counteract that, pressure Sun to check their marketers a bit, and make sure people know that there are strings attached. Beyond that, I say more power to Sun! If I need to use Solaris, or Java, or StarOffice, for a project, I'd much rather have the source code than not.
As for those who say, "Sheesh, this is just a sneaky way for Sun to get us to fix their bugs for them, we better not let them," I think that if you work for a company that's going to use their products anyway, and you do find a bug, and you're a good enough debugger that you have a chance to fix it yourself rather than wait 6 months for Sun to do it, and if you can fix the bug on company time, then you're much better off fixing the bug, your company's better off, and so I'm glad that employees of companies which are already using Solaris have that option. In a sense this is no different than if you find a bug in Linux and fix it on company time, since you're getting paid either way, and either way you get the good feeling of knowing that you've helped made a critical piece of software is more reliable.
But, you might argue, "Well, if I help make Sun's software better, then they're going to make more money, and we can't have that now, can we?" You neglect the fact that Sun would've made just as much money and had just as many customers with or without your bug fix, and so the only real difference you've made is making life a little bit easier for the community of other users who are forced to deal with Solaris. And after all, that's why they call it a "community source license", because Sun really does want to make things better for their community of users, and hopefully in the end, with your bug fix, and thousands of others, they will have a slightly more reliable product and ultimately make slightly more money. And if that's a problem for you, then don't contribute! Some other Solaris user will likely find and fix the bug you would have fixed anyway.
But what if you go beyond fixing bugs and start adding new features to Solaris? Well, then, I can see some justification for being upset with the licensing terms. Suppose you add some better x86 hardware detection code to the Solaris installer and contribute it back to them. Then when Sun releases the next version of Solaris, they proudly point to their new WhizzyCoolInstall(tm) feature, and raise the price by $200. They sell a zillion copies of Solaris/x86 and cut into the Linux market a little. You're perceived as a sell-out, and nobody's happy, except Sun, and they stop being happy when everybody sees how you were treated and nobody else is foolish enough to add features to Solaris. What then?
In that case, I'd say, "don't do that then." If you have an idea for a great new feature, make it a loadable module. License it under whatever terms you want. With access to the Solaris code, you can easily make it work under Solaris, and you (or anyone else) can make it work under Linux too. If you were planning to release WhizzyCoolInstall under open source, then you weren't going to make any money off of it anyway, and this way, Sun can't turn around and use your new feature against Linux, because both OS's will have access to it. Everyone's happy, and the community of people who have to use Solaris, as well as the community of rabid Linux fan^H^H^Husers are both happy.
Honestly, I'm starting to think that /. has become physically incapable of seeing loaded issues like SCSL in their proper contexts. In the business world, most people are going to be thinking like me, so you might as well get used to it, and come up with some sort of realistic response, rather than "Sun must die." Especially since Sun's going to do it anyway, and their customers are going to be happy, and if you don't look at the issue from the POV I just gave, then you won't understand what happened.
--
Jake
Quick question: how much do you have to pay for the compiler to compile this free source?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.