Slashdot Mirror
Upside Editorial Piece on Sun and Open Source
netkatze writes " Upside did a recent article in the op-ed section. " It's an interesting piece, taking on the notion of Sun being a partner with the open source movement, with the conclusion that Sun doesn't "get it." It's been an ongoing debate within the community - is Sun an enemy? Or is the enemy of my enemy my friend?
Your idealistic argument feels good. however, it's un-realistic. If you define the success of Linux as I do: it's ability to be used in your workplace as a viable alternative to anything else out there, then the ignoarance and misunderstanding of major companies CAN move mountains. What's worse, it's MY mountain they can move. So for me, Sun it the enemy...maybe not THE enemy...but an enemy non the less.
Werd.
We're here for the fun of it. We're here because we can. We're here because Linux is cool.
Don't lose sight of this!
(ie: If A=B, then B=A, except where void or prohibited by law.)
For Sun to argue that you can replace some (or all) of the desktop's components with a central repository is old Mainframe-style thinking, when everyone had teletypes or desktop VDUs. That style works, but the desktop PC's flexibility has proven superior. The previous bid by the Mainframe crowd were the X terminals. Clunky boxes, superior to the old text-only VDUs I used on the old Prime 750 or the teletypes on the Prime 350, but only just.
(Personally, I'd swap one of those X terminals for a good, high-speed teletype, any day! They're cooler, by far!)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Does it =matter= if Sun doesn't "understand" Open Source? Really? In the end, no it doesn't. Linux will stand or fall on it's own, no matter WHAT Sun or Microsoft do. The only people it makes any difference to at all are those emploed BY Sun. It will be THEY who are affected by Sun's stance, not GNU, not Linux, not the OSI, not even the moons of Saturn.
If Sun =DO= understand Open Source, does =that= really matter? Nope! Linux, the FSF, the Apache lot, etc, will continue just the same. Sun's understanding, as with it's ignorance, affects only Sun.
If Sun go the OSS route, they have long-term survival. If they don't, they won't. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Their call, their consequence, and nobody else need be affected one little bit.
Quite an ego-deflator, to know that the major decisions of top-ranking companies don't move mountains, and barely dent mole-hills. But one I think they're in need of.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Generally, the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a shortsided, usually unethical way to look at things. IMHO it reeks of seeing the whole situation as a race to screw the other guy or be screwed, rather than to either go about your business separately, or cooporate towards a solution.
You have to be patient with the suits, or with the ironed T-shirts (is that what roblimo called them?) because they learn slowly, but are not impervious to good ideas.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Sun almost Gets It, but not quite. They were founded on the premise of utilizing an open software platform, but (originally) on highly closed systems. Then they opened up the processor architecture, but held onto the software (which, by then, was a pretty funky Unix). Now, they agonize over whether or not to open up the crown jewels, but more as a reflex to the two latest driving factors in their business:
1: Hatred of Microsoft
2: Fear of Linux
You know, there's a lot of parallels between Apple and Sun when it comes to being control freaks at the corporate level if you think about it... Neither one is quite willing to give up those family jewels to the world, but they want desperately to reap the benefits of openness anyways.
And both companies come heart-breakingly close to Getting It, only to shy away. "Open" Solaris? Whoopee. Put it under a GPL-like or even a BSD license, now we're talking. Other than that, thanks for playing - you lose.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
"The goal is "Software that doesn't suck". Personally, I don't care who writes it, or what it is. It could be Windows. It could be Solaris. It could be Linux. Who cares? I just want it to work well, without being a hassle."
Sorry if this sounds a bit like a rant, but I just wanted to point out that I totally disagree with that sentence.
For me, the freedom aspects of free software are far more important than having the technically best sollution. Actually, I'm using Linux even thought it's a far worse technical sollution for me and my needs than NT4. With Linux I have to deal with a lot more problems and frustration, for example:
1. I'm really missing a good C Development environment. MS Dev is by _far_ the most comprehensive, feature filled and well thought out development environment I've ever used. When using my current development tools on Linux it feels like I'm puffing along in a tractor when I could have been crusing along in a Ferrari and it actually affects the development time of my projects. KDevelop is on the right track, but still have a lot of things to sort out.
2. The lack of good desktop applications is still quite bad, although it's improving all the time. I sometimes feel like I'm in chains because I know of a tool that will do exactly what I want with only a few mouse clicks, it's there, right outside my reach because it runs on Windows, not Linux.
3. Everytime I buy some new hardware I have to first check if there are drivers for it. Is that scanner/printer/soundcard/camera/PDA supported?
4. GAMES. I'm missing all the games I used to play on my Windows machines! :(
So why do I put up with all this? Windows NT would definitely be a better technical sollution for _my_ personal needs and I would just have to borrow a copy from work and install it and everything would be just fine.
Simply because I value the freedom aspects of free software. I want to use a system and programs that I can tinker with as much as I want. I want to use programs that I can give to my friends. I don't want to be depending on a big software company who technically owns the software I'm just licensed to use. I don't want to pay $$$ every year to keep my word processor up to date so I can read the documents people send me. I don't want to be depending on the "goodwill" of a company for fixing that bug that really doesn't affect their sales but I desperately need to get fixed. I don't want to live in a world where the producers constantly makes two versions of the same program (one that's rediculously expensive and the other one is seriously downgraded) simply because they make slightly more money that way. I don't want to live in a world where developing countries on the edge of having a technological and economical breakthrough are hold back because greedy software companies require them to pay rediculously high software licenses. And I don't want a small number of software companies to be in charge of the infrastructure of tomorrow by holding the right to key software components or software patents since that would seriously degrade whatever is left of our democracy.
Of course I also want software that doesn't suck, but for me the quality of the software is really secondary to the freedom aspects (as long as it's not totally useless) which is proven by the fact that I'm using Linux as my desktop computer even though it isn't the best technical sollution for me _yet_. If Open Source development in the end leads to better software than the proprietary software model (which I also believe it does) that would be great, but it's not my main reason for supporting and taking part in the movement.
Ok, sorry for the rant and sorry if I offended somebody, but I really needed to get that of my chest. Otherwise I totally agree that we should worry less about enemies and concentrate more on getting our programs better.
Incase you haven't noticed, Sun seems to have scheduled releases - ie, they aren't making everything "open source" at once - they're doing it in pieces to get the maximum amount of press. And if you read their licensing, it seems that they are still hesitant to 'let go' of it once and for all and go free software. They need that control so that if open source falters or something, they can pull everything back without much loss.
It's not that Sun's evil... they're certainly making contributions. It's just that the SCL makes sure those contributions aren't that useful to the rest of us. Keep it in perspective though - better the SCL than a Microsoft Artistic License (shudder).
--
There are two serious dangers of using "semi-open" source code that are not often discussed here.
... that happened to run much more efficiently then the bloated, "traditionally-designed" MVS/TSO combination.
... which is a shame, because there are lots of things in VM, Rexx and CMS pipelines, for instance, that provide functionality that simply does not exist in the Unix environment.
1) There is the very real possibility that the owner of the source code may yank the source code out from under you. This has happened. Specifically, in the IBM VM community.
VM started back in the mid 1960s as a small internal IBM project, with a few extremely talented programmers, who were trying to scratch an itch. Sound familiar? The specific itch was: "How can we run multiple operating systems on the same computer", so that we can do our testing during the day instead of having to schedule downtime for the entire system to make our tests?"
The result was a program called CP, that runs on IBM 370 iron, where each and every task is a "virtual 370". Just like VMWARE, but for mainframes. You've seen how VMWARE lets you bring up Windows 95 in a Unix window. Well, VM allowed you to bring up MVS, or any other 370 operating system, including VM itself on a terminal. Just for fun, I once set up a second level VM, then went into that second level VM, and built a third and fourth level VM, and it worked.
CP found its sweet spot when it was combined with a different single-user operating system called CMS. VM is really the marriage of CP and CMS. CMS was originally designed as a single-user, high performance operating system to run on bare iron. CMS is single-tasking, and provides the filesystem, compilers, I/O, interrupt structure, etc.
The system provided performance that was simply unheard of on unix systems of similar power. At our peak, we easily ran over a thousand CMS sessions on our 3090 -- each of which was emulating an entire 370 for a single user.
VM was a tight, lean operating system with great performance. Of course, it didn't hurt that the people who wrote it were some of IBM's best hackers, and they had an additional incentive to produce excellent code: all of their work was visible to the customers.
IBM also tried more then once to kill off this "upstart" operating system
Since the first days of the VM mainframe operating system, the entire operating system was distributed with full, buildable source code to the entire operating system. The result was that sites could and did experiment with the CP and CMS kernels, adding functionality, finding bugs, and creating what was, to many, the finest mainframe operating system ever designed.
VM system programmers freely traded their mods around, in source code form, and some of the best of these mods became part of the VM core distribution. In other words, the Open Source process was ALIVE AND WORKING in practice, only it was restricted to paying customers of IBM. The IBM users group is called SHARE, and VM systems programming community had its' share of brilliant programmers who share their work in exactly the same spirit of the current open source community.
Of course, this never harmed IBM, because almost all of this work was being written in IBM 370 assembler language (for maximum efficiency, of course), and with the exception of a few Amdahl sites, must sites were running IBM mainframe hardware anyway.
This was all fine until the mid 80s, when IBM made a management decision to withdraw source code to all of their products. Dispite the outcry from sites around the world, IBM started selectively removing parts of the source code from their distributions, and introducing new functionality without source. Along with the new functionality came huge, bloated object code modules, and conceptually defective interfaces. IBM also threw hundreds of programmers at VM, and the efficiency and elegance of the operating system started to deteriorate.
The result was a disaster that virtually killed the VM community. Whereas in an open source environment, system administrators such as myself could trace crash dumps, find bugs, and report them to IBM, we were all left in the situation where we would crash a crash dump, only to have the trace lead into an "object-code-only" module. This made it much more difficult to maintain a reliable system.
The other disaster was to sites (such as ours) that had made large numbers of local modifications to the IBM-supplied source code. More then once, I had the experience of sitting down to port our local mods to the next release of VM, only to find that one of the modules that I needed to modify had had the source code removed. The result was that people such as myself were forced to disassemble the IBM object decks, work out binary patches, and apply them blindly. I still have a couple of these binary-only patches, based on five year old source code, on our VM system.
We are currently in the process of phasing out our VM systems, and not surprisingly, so are many other VM sites.
So here's the question. Say you are a company that builds a mission-critical system by joining the Sun Community Source License program. You download the source code, and make a large number of changes to the source code to build your mission-critical production server. Now, a year or two down the line, Sun announces the end of the Community Source License program. The next month, Sun releases a new object-code-only version of Solaris that incorporates new features or bug fixes that you need.
Now you are absolutely screwed. Don't think that this couldn't happen. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO IBM'S VM CUSTOMERS.
For the curious, an excellent history of the VM operating system may be found on Melinda Varian's home page:
http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda
2) The second danger that is not often discussed here is the danger of accidently incorporating propriatary code, or code that is "close enough to sue", in an open source project.
The WINE project has been able to proceed on safe legal ground, because reverse engineering is a legal activity. Microsoft can hardly claim that parts of Wine were derived illegally from Microsoft propriatary source code, because Microsoft closely guards access to the source code. If Microsoft were to release the windows source code, and someone were to read the windows source code and use that information to fix a bug or add a feature to WINE, or someone just happened to write their own code that happened to resemble part of Windows' source code, Microsoft could file a lawsuit against the WINE developers, and probably obtain a injunction banning distribution of Wine. The fact that Windows is Object Code Only is the ONLY defense against legal harassment, and I predict that this will become a serious problem as more propriatary source code is made available under non-free licensing terms.
Could the same thing happen with Sun and Linux? How farfetched would it be to imagine that sometime down the road, Sun were to file a lawsuit against the major Linux distributors, claiming that some newly-written feature of Linux was so much like a Solaris feature that it must have been illegally copied from Solaris, even if the feature was independantly written, and just happened to look like Sun's solution because both authors solved the problem essentially the same way.
I see Sun's "Community Licensing" as a serious, dangerous threat to the open source community, and I think that we would be much better off if they were to simply not release their source code, rather then release it under their unacceptable terms.
Obviously, free software developers cannot afford to fight lawsuits, and Sun is giving us NOTHING that we can use, while putting themselves in a position to use lawsuits to try and put free software competitors out of business. Whether or not this an "Accidental" feature of their policy, it is still a danger that has not been addressed.
- John Schulien
jms@uic.edu
Lets step back and think !!!
What is Linux ??
It is 30 years old idea done difrently. That's all it is. It is trying to imitate branded Unix and , for God's sake, it isn't even as good as things like Solaris or HP Unix. It is not.
There is nothing revolutionary about Linux OS. What is new is the way it is being developed. That's all that matters here.
If Open Source fails, Linux won't matter anymore because there is nothing inovative about Linux OS.
Most of the time it simply tries to catch up with commercial offerings. I have yet to see single innovative technical idea come from Linux.
Don't look at this as a flamebait, stop for a second and think about what I just wrote...
I spent some time thinking about what I'd want Sun to do about Java licensing. They do have to keep it compatible because it's all the value there is to Java, else you could just use C++ (where all compilers have their quirks) or even some sh_tty non-OO language. I tend to think that QPL is the ideal license for them. Coupled with 100% pure Java campaign it could prevent forking. Forking through patches is enough of a pain that people wouldn't do it. Of course, they will lose Java revenue, but I have a feeling it's inevitable anyway. It is important to realise that Java licensing MUST include open-sourcing their compatibility test suite, else open-sourcing Java would either be a joke or would force forking. I am saying this because I gave up hope to see Java an open well-defined standard, so at least we need an open reference implementation.
"Open Source is a movement that encourages people to release their source code without caring about the freedom associated with it."
And what freedom would that be? It's not a political freedom. I call it Free Software because it's free for me to use it, not because it gives me some right akin to free speech. If you truly think Free Software is the moral equivalent of Free Speech, then you really don't know much at all about Free Speech. Free Speech gives me the right NOT to speak. Free Software as defined by RMS tells me that I MUST release my source code.
"I care about good software, but I care more about freedom."
Good for you. I feel the same way. Unfortunately, Free Software has nothing to do with freedom. If Congress is passing onerous laws like UCITA, or preventing me from creating code through patent laws, then they are taking away my freedom. But Sun does nothing to infringe any of my natural and unalienable rights, or any of my political freedoms granted or ungranted by my government.
"Open Source" is much more accurate than "Free". And "open" is just as positive as "free". Unfortunately, "open" doesn't have the emotional quality that "free" does. Revolutionaries always like the words "free" and "freedom". They incite emotions in the simple populace, who are so ignorant that they fall for that old trick, and gladly install dictators over them.
Stop fooling yourself. Free Software is not liberty.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"I want source with my software because that is my right!"
But it's not your software! It's mine. I own it, it is my intellectual property. If it was not mine, then I couldn't demand that you follow the dictates of the GPL license that I put it under! If there is no intellectual property, then ALL software is public domain.
You may have the right to fix YOUR broken chair, but you have no right whatsoever to fix MY broken chair that I lent to you.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Oh yes, I have read those pages. And they still have nothing to do with political liberty. They give me the freedom to use someone else's software. They are a list of permissions. I have the permission to redistribute the software. I have the permission to modify the software. I have permission to redistribute the modifications. And so on. If you think that Free Software is morally akin to Free Speech, do you also think that it should be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well?
I'll rephrase your question to me. Who precisely forces you to use Sun's license? If you are free to choose not to use it, then it isn't restricting your freedom!
The Sun license says that I must follow their rules to use their source code. Ironically enough, Richard Stallman says exactly the same thing: follow my rules or don't use my software.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"First of all, I believe that any company that produces only proprietary software is an enemy of Free Software, and freedom in general. I know this sounds Stallman-esqe, but that's because it is. Remember Free Software? It's what we believed in before open source turned us into proponents of a business model instead of an ideal."
I never believed in free software. Linux is a nice product, I might use it in the future but its not revolutionary. I'm not an idealist. I like to think of my self as a pragmatic person. All this talk about evil companies and enemies of OSS makes me laugh.
OSS is an efficient way of incrementally improving software. I have yet to see any new stuff originating from the OSS community. With new I mean something that is not a cleanroom implementation of something that already exists. I think John Carmack made a similar statement in the interview earlier today.
Most companies currently involved in OSS are pragmatic too and are in it for one thing only: making more profit. Red Hat sells shrink wrapped linux, IBM and SUN are hardware companies in the first place. They also make money supporting software (either their own or open source stuff.). Making software is something they do only to support the first two things.
Because of this, Linux is not an "enemy" to SUN. They can make money selling hardware that runs Linux and they can make money selling support (something they are not doing right now).
Giving away their own software (under GPL) won't boost their hardware sales significantly, also it won't improve their support revenue. So why are they bothering with semi OSS? Simple: they found out that it is a good way to improve their software without losing control.
Is SUN different from MS? Yes, MS is a software selling company in the first place and a software support company only in the second place. OSS can only cut their revenue since everything given away won't bring in revenue. SUN on the other hand only gets a minor percentage of their revenue from software sales. If they can boost hardware sales by giving away software they will do it. IBM is in the same position and is following a similar strategy.
Jilles
"So, what do you want to hack for, Bickle?"
"I can't sleep nights."
"They got porno theaters for that."
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
First of all, I believe that any company that produces only proprietary software is an enemy of Free Software, and freedom in general. I know this sounds Stallman-esqe, but that's because it is. Remember Free Software? It's what we believed in before open source turned us into proponents of a business model instead of an ideal.
But now, Sun has progressed beyond simply producing proprietary software. They have taken the same software and given you the source without giving you the right to use it as you see fit. Fine, that's their disgusting prerogative. Here's the worst part. They're calling it a community license. They can blabber all they want about how they never presented it as "open source." They know exactly what the word "community" implies, and they're spitting in the face of this concept.
This ladies and germs, is what makes them the enemy. I kept hoping that Sun would either rename or redesign the SCSL before they released more software under it, but I have given up hope after the Solaris announcement. As a Free Software proponent, I find Sun's actions disgusting, subversive, misrepresenting and manipulative.
I hope that other Free Software advocates see this as the gross ruse that it is, and spread the word about the SCSL and it's danger to the very community that it claims to represent.
-zack
I don't understand why the Linux community, and the OSS movement as it relates to Linux, has to think of any company as an enemy.
The very nature of OSS as a non-profit operation means that the normal rules of capitalistic competition do no apply. As open source software's original goal was never "domination of the desktop", but more provide free alternatives that any may choose or not choose, then what possible effect can an enemy of Linux have on those who choose it?
The real enemy of Linux specifically at this point is its success. Questions like how long can donated development co-exist with a deluge of commercial releases will make this a very interesting ride. But please, let's get off the track of us versus the world and who's with us and who's against us.
Hotnutz.com
I think he is wrong, to some extent, since he doesn't see the differences between Java and Linux.
Linux has a dictator in Linus. He is a good dictator, since he has proven over and over again to make good decisions that are good for us all.
Java has a dictator as well, Sun. If Sun made Java open source, the risk of fragmentation is high, because Microsoft wants nothing else than fragmentation of the Java movement, AND they have the channels to do it. They could just twist the Java source the way they want it to be (tied to Windows) and then ship it with every Windows box, which would make it turn up on perhaps 80% of all
PC:s on this planet.
No one else wants that, but that is what would happen if they just made Java open source.
Linux doesn't have that risk hovering over its head, because MS is very unlikely to ever ship an incompatible Linux version to anyone.
What Sun should do is to give the current Java 2 spec to ISO for standardization. That would be fast and pretty painless. Microsoft cannot fiddle with ISO. They tried 2 years ago and failed. After that there would be a standard base which all Java environments had to adhere to, and from there on Sun could let people innovate, by making the rest of Java open source.
is Sun an enemy? Or is the enemy of my enemy my friend?
Why do they have to be either? They are a software developer. If they're smart, this is the first step in testing the waters of true Open Source. After all, they may find that Linux makes huge strides in some area that they want to pick up source from. If they move to a truely open license in the future, they will be able to do this.
This makes them no more or less an enemy than BeOS. They are a software developer and have the same standing in the community as any other software developer give-or-take the quality of their code and the nature of their actions WRT the community.
We must never drop to the level of "Not... us... must be... enemy! Must... KILL!" That department is well stocked with hundreds of companies of which the usuall ScapeGoat mentioned here on Slashdot is only the most successful. If Sun chooses to embrace a different path, we should not turn around and slap them in the face for it!
Ok, when anyone does anything, its generally because they see an advantage in it. RMS created FSF due to his morals, Linus created Linux because he was interested in it, etc. Sun would embrace the Open Source movement if it saw an incentive for it. The article basicly says.. Sun is inept by openning its code, but doesn't give it out freely for the developers to tweak. I don't see the incentive, I generally see the same people saying "Linux rules.. we'll kill all other UNIXes (and OSes)." That's one way to solve the UNIX frgmented market, I guess.
Lets examine how SUN would make money (more money) off putting everything under the GPL or the BSDL. The Solaris/Sparc combination is highly used at ISPs because of stability and performance. Many of the same ISPs that use Sun boxes use FreeBSD on lower end PCs, because FreeBSD has great performance/stability, and can handle what a Sparc isn't needed for.
Sun made Solaris's code open, which IMO was to make it easier for developers to write on the Solaris/Sparc platform, rather than getting them to go find bugs and enhance the OS. I doubt that if Sun made the OS open source, that anything more than leeching of code would take place, just like the Slashdot forums were full of comments about trying to GPL open source BSDs (for good and down right sickening reasons) when the BSDL changed. This merely improves Linux (& BSD), but on a range of platforms. Linux gets stabler, and now Sun has to deal with competing with PCs running an OS closing in on Solaris's quality, rather then NT which many have gripes towards. That, IMO, would increase compitition, and as PCs are dominent, it would not create a bigger market for Sun hardware.
Lastly, if Sun did do that, its competetors (IBM, Compaq, Microsoft) could take the code too. That is, unless they use the GPL due to its restrictions, and thus taunt its competitors with access.. yet not without them opening up too. Instead, Sun is using the SCSL to help developers use its technologies, but Sun gets some revenue and doesn't see splintering. Sun never gave up its power over Java, and has bitterly fought Microsoft for trying to make it platform dependant. By opening its technologies under the SCSL, Sun also increases its market by not having increasesd compitition, but rather having more out there for customers.
It could easily be argued that SUN would help the community by opening up, but when you look at the bottom line, I have not yet seen a good argument on why Sun's revenue would sky rocket. If someone has an answer, I'd love to see it.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
I would think so.. but Bill Joy seems to ignore open source, and has adopted the idea that you use open source when playing with the little guys, and when you need the big ones, you go to Sun. That's why they support Linux, Sun believes that if your done playing, you get Solaris. Same with PCs. From the few times I've read Bill Joy make remarks on open source in recent press, he seems to have forgotten that he pioneered it, along with FSF and others. He did much of the work on BSD.. and its sad Sun went System V, because it seemed entirely for advertising rather then users (as many clung to SunOS and disliked Solaris..)
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Learning by understanding their code (which is freely viewable), and then re-engineering it.. but.. that likely wouldn't work, because the developer is agreeing to certain conditions, and thus may make his code truly Sun's. That's why companies must inform developers that they cannot agree to such licenses or else the company may have to give Sun whatever code they create...
Also, Sun does better SMP both because Solaris is superior in that area, and Sparc is far better than x86 in MP configurations. It would surely help, in general. But, licenses are always a problem.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
- is Sun an enemy? Or is the enemy of my enemy my friend?
I'd say that talk of "enemies" is dangerous. Forget "enemies". Forget talk of "Beating Company X".
Remember, the goal isn't for Linux to rule, or for FreeBSD to rule, are whatever. The goal is "Software that doesn't suck". Personally, I don't care who writes it, or what it is. It could be Windows. It could be Solaris. It could be Linux. Who cares? I just want it to work well, without being a hassle. And quite frankly, no OS I've used is there yet. In fifteen years, many of these religious wars will sound as stupid as the "C-64 vs. Apple ][+" debates that raged on the BBSes in 1984.
Hell, if the long term of destiny Linux was nothing more than to force Microsoft to start competing by producing better software instead of using shady business practices, I'd call it a victory for all of us.
If you want good software, well I'd say that the key is to stop worrying about "enemies" and instead:
1) Write good software.
2) Calmly and rationally explain the good points and bad points of any software you encounter.
3) Promote development methods that promote good software.
The only way Sun could be "The enemy", in my mind, is if they break the law. (By, for example, stealing GPL'd software.) Otherwise, they are just a company that may or may not have a product worth having. No need to worry unless you are buying.
These stories remind me a lot of the alarmism about communism a couple decades back. The theory was that the free market was more efficient than communism. If you truly believed that, than there was no need to "fight" communism, as the free market, being more efficient, was bound to emerge victorious. Same goes here. If "Open Source" really does produce better software than the alternatives, then there is no need to fight for it. It will "win" on its own, and the companies that support it will survive. Those that don't, won't. All that is important is that we ensure that everyone fights fair.
The cake is a pie
Isn't there already an oppurtunity for Java to fork due to clean-room implementations of the JVM like Japhar and Kaffe (under LGPL and GPL, respectively)? It's a notion that popped into my head a while back, never gave it too much thought, though.. I haven't looked at Java 2.0 (or even that Java compiler I think Cygnus came out with.. as you can tell I don't exactly stay "on top" of the Java scene ;), but I hear it was mostly bloat. A fork in Java might not be all that bad (slap a new name on it, of course), as avoiding bloat is good. ;)
~ Kish
Disclaimer: My views, as usual, are strong. I'm very much in the "free software" camp. Enjoy this post at your own leisure if you really care to hear what I have to say.. ;) (I'm also not quite awake.. not enough caffeine..)
Precisely.. wrong. As explained by Stallman himself:
Now, on to the bulk of this post..
Perhaps I should begin by saying that there are several kinds of "freedom". For absolute fanatics (like the one you are arguing with, apparently, as they remind me of some BSD elitists I had the misfortune of speaking with.. note the difference between BSD user/proponent/advocate and elitist .. this is not a bland generalization on my part, as I am not including all those who like BSD), there is this cute little page which explains what "freedoms" the GPL is intended to impart. No one on the GPL side of the fence kids themselves: this is a restrictive license. However, the astute will notice that even a democracy such as the U.S. is not truly "free" in the strictest of terms. Pure anarchy would be much closer to being "free" in the way certain fanatics would scream out against the GPL. For those of you who think like that: get a life.
Before I begin, I think I should note that my political stance is between that of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, leaning toward the former. I believe free software is better than proprietary software, and dislike using stuff that isn't under the GPL (except for simple things like PINE or PICO, which really don't need me to tinker with them, anyway). However, I understand the need for choice. BSD elitists will complain about the GPL. GPL elitists will complain about the BSD license. However, neither are as restrictive as most proprietary licenses. I must stress that he/she who produces the software is free to use any license they want. You don't like it? Who gives a fuck? No one forces you to use their license. No one forces you to use their software. It's your decision. If you don't like something, don't subject yourself to it. Complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. Elitists on either side of the fence on this issue usually are making arguements which, if they could make them a reality, would take away freedom from the other group. Freedom is about choice. Exercise that freedom, and let others get on with their lives. Otherwise you might as well be Joe Public complaining about how horrible television is and yet you continue to sit on your fat ass and watch it all day. Real productive.
Sort of, but not quite. Source code is what is used to create a given piece of software. If you take this arguement to its logical extreme, you're really complaining that when someone sells you a chair, they should also give you the tools necessary to build it (which would probably be what, an entire factory? heh). Also, you're missing the point that you can't really change a chair. A chair is a chair is a chair. It will always be a chair (or else a pile of useless wood if you get really angry.. or some other material if it's not wooden). Software, however, can evolve. And while some may think its a neat idea to put a third arm on a chair, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Most uses of the term "freedom" are highly generalized. I would like to once again assert that there are several different kinds of freedoms, and obviously if you had some Star Trek-esque replicator people are going to have a hard time keeping you from replicating your chair and giving it to a neighbor. However, by the time our technology is that advanced, there won't be much of a market (or need for) chair makers, as we will by then have a strong market for companies who produce gadgets that fuck with molecular structures and what have you.
Well, that's your right if the software in question is covered under the GPL or a similar licensing scheme. Contrary to popular belief (sort of), people can do with their code whatever they damn well please.
~ Kish
..you should read up just a little on the topics at hand before you shoot your mouth off like that? I believe you should bother yourself to check out this page which defines what "free software" is and what freedoms it is meant to bestow upon you (as there is definitely more than one kind of "freedom" in the world), and that page which goes out of its way to explain the difference between "open source" and "free software". It's almost like getting hit by a clue-by-four, one might say..
If you're still not clue-aware after that, you can go ahead and read this post. If your attention span is too short for that, I'll sum it up with this basic question: who precisely forces you to license your software under the GPL, use GPL'ed software, or modify GPL'ed software? That said, why must you release your source because RMS "said so"? You can certainly use another license or piece of software, don't you think?
~ Kish
Sun is a public coporation. Therefore Scott & co have a fiscal and legal responsibility to shareholders. Solaris and Java licensing contribute to Sun's profit margin. I have yet to see anyone propose how to minimalize the impact to Sun's bottom line. If RMS or ESR can I'm sure Sun would love to listen, because they win a lot of fans. However, until that is done, the board at Sun's hands are tied, because if they decrease their bottom line without justification (ie loss now for future revenues) then the board can be sued by the shareholders for fiscal damage. Not a position I'd want to be in.
Every time the radicals (I'm not saying all OSS/Free software advocates) yell at public companies that normally make money on a product to replace it, consider what I've mentioned above.
That which does not kill you, makes you stronger.