Slashdot Mirror
Novell Embraces Open Source, Sun Still Flirting
According to this story at Wide Open News that was submitted by a least a dozen readers, Bruce Perens has helped Novell create a "Novell Cooperative License" that meets true Open Source criteria. Meanwhile, CNN says Sun "...is working towards eventually 'community sourcing' as much of its software as possible," but under a license that doesn't truly qualify as Open Source. Sun is still a bit of a tease here, but at least this is a step in the right direction, eh?
Any developer smart enough to contribute to the Solaris or Linux code base is smart enough to figure out the differences between the SCSL and GPL.
Smart enough, yes. Well informed enough, sadly not always.
Take as an example the (obviously smart) authors of KDE, who failed to spot the subtle nuances of the interaction between GPL and both the old and new Qt licenses.
Note, I'm not criticising either the GPL or the KDE developers, just pointing out that misunderstandings of licensing subtleties are not only possible, but also often extremely painful to fix retroactively.
Therefore, being aggressively vocal about pointing out the shortcomings of the SCSL is entirely justified if it means preventing a similar situation arising in future.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Actually, the Timpanogas group was founded by an ex-Novell employee who was working on a sophysticated clustering system for NetWare servers. Timpanogas continued that work. Novell sued them and WON. Novell won bigtime, they had news reports all over the place about it, so I am a bit surprised you are stating the opposite.
Reading the post on the linux-kernel list, I still don't get how is NDS related to Timpanogs? Even in the leaked (whether true or forged) e-mail is stated that Timpanogas works on clustering, NDS has little or nothing to do with them.
Sigged!
Something like the SCSL does make sense for a pure software company.
Besides, the QPL, as I read it, satisfies most of your arguments and it's open source. Competitors can't use QPL code in their commercial products.
On the other hand, since Open Source was created by distributors like Debian, any Open Source product must allow distribution by commercial companies like RedHat without any royalties going back to the original developer.
Scott Ferguson
Scott Ferguson
Caucho Technology
>The lawsuit was in relation to some clustering
/usr/src/linux/fs/ncpfs/, I see that the original code is quite old (1995), but more interesting: There is no license. Could anybody please clear up in this? It's a bit disturbing...
>software. Right?
Sorry, I have no idea. And perhaps that's a bit scary -- how many of us check our software for patent restrictions before running it? I mean, for all I know, me running NCP could be a violation of some Novell patent.
Hmmm, looking at
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Yeah, heaving businesses in on the movement is nice, but it's really not that critical. Pretty much all the good code so far has come out of volunteers.
You know what I wish? That opinionated fellows like ESR would shut up and try coding for the second time in their lives (first time was the baby utility called fetchmail). Perens should also go back to working on Debian. Coding is where we get the most benefit from; not talking.
he actually makes sense
But, to me, publishing under SCSL looks like a pretty direct and deliberate attack by Sun on true open source Java and UNIX kernel efforts, because it takes away the motivation of many people to develop open source versions of their software without promoting anything other than Sun's business. Sun is still within their rights to do that, of course, but I think the open source community is justified in criticizing them for it.
(Incidentally, look for "contamination clauses" in their source code licenses; in the past, if you looked at their sources, you were prohibited from contributing to a clone.)
"They want people (community) to work for them for FREE soi they can make money. Doesn't this seem unfair to you?" No one says you have to participate or contribute. If you think sun is a great company and want to contribute then fine, go and do it. In case you haven't noticed companies are interested in making money, not helping the OSS community.
What is all of this bitching about? First, Solaris is not a Sun creation. It is the derived work of many other companies (AT&T/Lucent, SCO, and even Microsoft!). In order to go open source, Sun not only has to change its license, but convince the other owners to do the same. I can bet you now that is not likely to happen anytime soon. Second, the whole open source announcement was a mistake from a unknown veep within Sun. It seems that one veep was quoted that Sun was going to give away source, then the other veeps in the compnay started parroting the same thing to not look like fools. So for a mistake decision, it is a pretty good implementation.
NDS is worthless because nothing but novells tools talk to it, and it intregrates with the rest of the world like rollerskates on a tuna.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"Linux has no directory services"?
Am I way off track, or isn't the ability to integrate PAM, kerberos, ldap and radius something to do with directory services?
They left novell and started selling novell's clustering tech. Novell sued and theys guys fessed up. Why should anyone listen to them now?
6 1,349111-54,00.html
for more info see http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,60
I find this open source option very wonderful. As a young developer I often look to 'advanced' code and try to learn what I can from those projects.
What I don't understand is why technology in general isn't being opensourced? Source code is nice, but things like digital hardware could also benifit from this. It would bring cost down and increase the derivative of the slope for advancement. Just and idea...
Justen Stepka
jstepka@webprogrammers.net
Justen Stepka
Yes, I think many /.ers will agree with that name. But that tells more about those people than about the license.
What? Against the dogma? Yeah, ok, so this is /.
from the above link:
However, nothing short of a full "Open Source" implementation will make the Linux
community happy. So the real challenge is to create a Open Source "minimal NDS" to seed the market. Once NDS is in the door, then Novell can leverage and up-sell the ZEN and Internet product lines.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thanks for keeping up with the payments.
+&x
Actually, the Timpanogas group was founded by an ex-Novell employee who was working on a
sophysticated clustering system for NetWare servers. Timpanogas continued that work. Novell sued
them and WON. Novell won bigtime, they had news reports all over the place about it, so I am a bit
surprised you are stating the opposite.
No. The case was settled out of court.
Jeff Merkey, the guy you're referring to, is also the architect of what became the Novell 5 kernel.
Reading the post on the linux-kernel list, I still don't get how is NDS related to Timpanogs? Even in
the leaked (whether true or forged) e-mail is stated that Timpanogas works on clustering, NDS has
little or nothing to do with them.
After the lawsuit was settled, Timpanogas pursued filesystems. You can currently download "Fenris" (Netware FS for Linux) from their web site. This will obviously be the basis of any future clustering project Timpanogas may pursue....
In the mean time, now that Fenris is finished, they're working on NDS for Linux / Windows.
The Young like Open Source. Bowing to 'cool peer pressure' they don't know any different.
It seems you need to read this: Free as in Free Speech
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Have you ever heard about IBM?
Have you ever heard about RedHat or Cygnus?
Have you ever heard about Irix? Erm. About SGI?
Have you ever heard about Corel?
They are companies that develop things.
Two of them build new hardware (and hell, great hardware).
They make money from their work. At least, they try to.
And, unlike Sun, they develop free software.
That is why they don't get all this `hatred' you mention that Sun does get.
Sun can release their software under whatever license they want. What is irritating is that they pretend their license if Free Software (or Open Source) when it is far from being so.
Alejo
It pretty hard writing progrmas with a few comments in the code here and there. Some of those pieces could be months old. I have a hard time remembering what I did yesterday let alon a few months ago.
Uh... Your statement "Netware is not gaining any new customers - they're just keeping existing customers." isn't at all true, and seems to be FUD from the "other direction".
I believe FUD tactics are wrong, whether from MS or from the Open Source world...
I'm still installing NEW Novell networks, where no network has been, or (so-called) competing networks have been. I install several new ones a year (two this month), and being a one-person operation, that's pretty good numbers. Novell is not gaining market SHARE, but the whole market is growing so rapidly, they are gaining huge numbers of seats (the percentage slice of the pie is shrinking, but the pie is growing so much the slice's size is still growing).
One of my clients is soon going to be decommissioning an NT server as they found they could run their app just fine from their existing Netware server with only a disk system upgrade (they had been told the app required NT) and a heck of a lot less headaches. Now, they don't count as a "new" install, or even a new server, but I think it counts as a definite Netware "victory". That's one of the "problems" Netware has...it just tends to take on more tasks with little fanfare, rather than implementing five new NT servers. This doesn't show up in the statistics.
Netware may not be gaining as many new seats and customers as NT. They ARE possibly gaining more new seats supported (quantity, not market share) than Linux. These numbers are difficult to make sense of, however. A site that runs off one or two Netware servers doesn't do as much for Novell's numbers as a similar size site which runs off 10 NT servers, and has five Linux machines doing various functions.
When it comes to the business world, I feel what matters is results (or, at least, this is what SHOULD matter). If the employees at my clients sit down and think "Oh, now I start work on our [fill in type] network", I have done my job improperly. My goal is to have my clients think of their computer as they do their stapler and their phone: just one more tool to get The Job done, and The Job is rarely computers. I've found Netware does this well.
Don't get me wrong, I've got my own list of what Novell has done wrong. I'm looking forward to a day where I can start setting up Linux or FreeBSD systems as servers (and to be honest, I'm leaning towards FreeBSD [oh, now I'm in trouble..]) for small offices (by the way, there are FAR MORE small offices than there are mega-corporations!), and I'm really not sold on Netware 5 and "Pure IP" yet (IPX is the perfect firewall. Internet (IP) traffic can't hurt/breach/crack an IPX-only server!). However, several things are going to have to change and improve in the Linux/*BSD world before that happens..and Novell is free, of course, to improve their world, at the same time.
Real competition is good. Keeps everyone on their toes. That should be true of Open vs. Closed source, as well. But that's another essay...
Nick.
Perhaps NDS and file sharing over linux?
--
Even if they cant Open Source everything, atleast they are open sourcing some of it.
Maybe think about it this way: that you cannot use Open Source without experiencing freedom. It is this experience which will affect your thinking, rather than your thinking (about freedom) which will affect your experience.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The question we must ask is whether they are doing this with a genuine belief in the Open Source development model or just to grab some limelight (and look good). XGI announced their open source XFS long time ago and they have nothing as yet to show for it in their website... just my penny's worth...
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
He chose to work for Novell.
Novell pays him to be at work.
Novell tells him to work on this project while on company time.
He takes the project and starts his own company and is suprised when Novell sues.
What gets me is not him starting his own company that competes with his former employer, but that he was spent so much time on Novell's dollar building what he was planning to make his own fortune off of. He should have burned the midnight oil doing that at home and given Novell what they paid him to, no more, no less.
The BSD license and the GPL are better than the SCSL would ever dream of being. Watching Bill Joy (the inventor of the BSD license) run around touting the SCSL leaves a very bad taste in my mouth - it's like watching a man commit treason against one of his ideals "for the good of the company". It's sickening and sad.
-- ultra1
Hell, ESR's ego is enough. Like another poster said; you should start coding again and ESR should, well..err..code something!
The EGO's were OK, till the source got in the way...
Work with ESR...yeah, right... think we are that stupid...
This is interesting. I hope that Novell's license makes their software free software.
coupled with the fact that quad intel xeon machines have about 5 times the I/O bandwidth and overall speed compared to suns "enterprise" line of hardware, and you have a clear winner. Linux.
Not that I'm a Solaris biggot or anything. But I'd certainly like to see anyone tackle running a real time billing system tracking hundreds of millions of mobile phone calls on a quad xeon.
The production Solaris boxes at the company I'm on site at have more processors than most Intel boxes have Megs of RAM. And bandwidth? FDDI feeds are pretty quick.
We had a problem with a particular job failing in a test environment and the issue came back from development with the answer that the problem was occurring because that particular test system only had 2 Gigs of RAM. Guess what, the patch that will let Xeons see up to 64 GB hasn't made it to the 'stable' kernels series and it will be a while before it does. Even with that patch individual processes still have trouble dealing with as much as 4 GB.
Don't get me wrong, Linux will get to the point where it competes with Solaris someday. But it certainly isn't there now, except on the low end. As more and more of what distinguishes Solaris from Intel gives way to hordes of open source kernel hackers, Sun's software division might have something to start to worry about, but then again, Sun is predominantly a hardware company and hopefully by the time Linux can offer the same features as Solaris on an Enterprise 10000, Sun will be smart enough to jump on the band wagon.
Man (or Woman), you really had me laughing.
there was a post on linux-kernel from jeff merkey,
the developer of the existing netware support
for linux.
apparently, novell seems to play games..
decide for yourself.
i copy from:
jeffs linux-kernel post
Linux Community,
For those folks who saw the Linux Today article about Novell's "Open
source plans", here's some food for thought. This is an internal email
thread from Novell discussing Open Sourcing of NDS with the principals
at Novell with us (TRG) and attempting to negotiate us to stop Open
Sourcing NetWare technology on Linux. FYI, Dave Shirk and Novell are
full of it, and are in actuality trying to "put the genie back into the
bottle" and get us (TRG) under control. Part of their strategy is to
FUD the key Linux folks to divert attention and mindshare away from what
we are doing. They are out trying to FUD the open source community into
believing they are actually going to do something, but it's really a
well planned attempt to shut us down from providing NetWare open source
technology to you guys.
They first threatened us with more lawsuits if we did not halt our Open
Source NDS projects, then Dave Shirk, the so called "open source
champion" of Novell fired Bryan Clark, the Novell marketing person who
was trying to integrate our Open Source projects with Novell. Dave
Shirk called him into an office and fired him for even suggesting that
NDS be open sourced on Linux -- then turned straight faced to the the
Linux community, stating Novell was moving towards such a direction, and
lied to us. The attached internal email threads are provided so the
principals in the Linux community know these guys are full of it.
Busted!!!! If they try to suck up to any of you, be warned, their
intention is to CONTROL what's going down with their market share.
Linux is killing Netware right now, and will easiy assimilate over 1.5
million nodes of Netware next year. This is a predatory move to "trojan
horse" Linux and neutralize the threat.
Enjoy,
Jeff
We have a lot more than 3 Open Source organizations, actually. But you're right that SPI is in the soup as well. It's just that the latest conversation has been between me, FSF, and OSI.
I regret that I'm not going to be much of a coder for a while. I'm president of a VC firm investing in Open Source businesses. I'm hiring some good coders and mentoring them, that'll have to do.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
the problem never was that people were hiding source code, but rather using copyright law to shove monopolies down peoples throat. If you believe in open source, but don't understand that copyrights are bullshit - then you have simply pre-destined yourself to be screwed left and right with strange and incompatable license agreements that appear to be open but are not. As for Sun - it's time to look somewhere else, they are just out of touch!!
Nobody's forcing anyone to develop software for Sun. If your boss decides that it's in the best interests of your company, then that's his problem (and yours), not Sun's. Look, lawyers are not going to come busting down your door, as long as you don't break the license. Don't think the license if fair? Tough shit. Don't use it then. But, for the love of God, stop complaining about how much these licenses are evil and corrupting. It's a free market -- if you don't accept their terms then vote with your feet and use a different vendor.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think the term Open Source (instead of Free Software) was a bad idea.
Yes, it is true, persons don't have to think about the freedom when talking about Open Source. But in practice, as is seen on this article, persons tend to forget that, according to the Open Source Initiative, Open Source and Free Software mean exactly the same thing.
I'd rather have persons confuse Free as in Freedom with Free as in $0 sometimes than have persons think something can be Open Source but not Free Software.
Don't forget it: If it is not Free Software, it can not be Open Source.
No, poster, it is not your fault, it is Eric Raymond's.
Alejo
Yes, they might as well quit with computers altogether and start growing watermelons. I'm so sick of hearing this again and again. They are a software company and they're quite good at making software. Saying they should convert to "services" somewhat implies that everyone can do this "service" business regardless of their qualifications, and use the earnings from it to finance open source software or anything. Quite insulting to those who are doing services now, isn't it?
Down with the GNU!
Death to Richard M. Stallman!
We want our freedom back!
Damnit Jordan! I thought you promised to keep all the *BSD bigots securely in their cages?
How can something be GPLed for Linux, but Microsoft has to pay for it?
Intellectual property is not some glorious pillar of integrity that we are all bound and obligated to adore. It's a bullshit property right, and something to be very worried about because the last time somebody tried to uphold a bullshit property right it created a very ugly situation (renember the right to own slaves). While Sun is free to stick their head in the toilet, it's not going to do any of us any good - especially them, because they are beholden to hardware and services sales, not to their licensed code when it comes down to the wire. The fact that sun is so out of touch shows that there is going to be a lot of troubble ahead for them.
you're only partially right. Sun is beholden to hardware sales far more than software licenses. McNealy is so blinded in envy of bill-gates he is not even doing what's in his own best interest. Sun has destined themselves to take a beating while the rest of the market goes to Linux. The fact that they've lost touch is really a sign that we need to go somewhere else for our hardware.
I may be ranting a little here, but there is merit to the SCSL and a lot of organizations prefer it to GPL. If someone has a business interest and wants to keep it, that is their right. If someone wants to give something away with stipulations, that is also their right. Saying that you are a better gift giver (time and time again) gets old and alienates instead of helps.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
I find Bill Joy's remarks about why they don't go completely open source rather hypocritical, since SunOS was derived from BSD - open source software helped Sun make a whole lot of $$$.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
This concept of free is really getting old. "Linux" is not free. If Linus doesn't approve of a change it isn't a part of "Linux". Linux is owned, and restricted, just as Solaris is.
For a little credibility, I work at Novell. Currently, there is no client or back end scheduled to run on Linux. I have gotten the WebAccess part to run with Apache though. There is no word on if they will actually do something, but I know several are trying to push linux support with GW and I would love to see something happen. Unfortunately, Novell hasn't done much with Unix and GW. The only platform the 5.5 agents (MTA and POA) were developed for was Solaris 2.6, but maybe, just maybe they'll do something.
hmmm
last time i checked, ESR was responsible for Fetchmail.
For the un-clued in, fetchmail is a bit of software that lets you move mail from a remote pop3 server to a local mail spool
- Sid
A few corrections:
1) Eric Schmidt did not come from Javasoft, he was CTO for all of Sun. (He is also a certified VSG (Very Smart Guy), and one of the very few CEOs in this business that *fully* comprehends the importance and role of network computing environments. He was instrumental in the genesis of Oak/Java. For this reason alone I still hold out hope for Novell.)
2) Actually, Kerberos is not a directory service at all, but an auth service that relies on Project Athena's Hesiod service as its directory. It's possible to use Hesiod for things other than Kerberos, but unfortunately, Hesiod/Athena never took off outside a few DEC Unix shops. NIS+ may actually have the most elegant architecture of the NDS/NIS+/AD trio of (at least technically) serious contenders, but Sun never built tools that would have made NIS+ usable by mortals, so no one does (or really even can, it's sad.)
11) Novell's directory is in some ways less elegant than AD, but it has the big advantage of running on darn near eveything, where AD is (and is likely to remain) NT only.
12) Good point - especially on the low end. But it would be a mistake not to continue to capitalize on success in the mid-range server market. There are too many people out there that think Linux is the right answer everywhere. Part of being a good technologist is recognizing "appropriate technology."
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
What's wrong with "scratching by"?
It's very simple. Any author can release their code in any license they want. An author can also release their code under multiple licenses. Microsoft apparently didn't want to abide by the rules of the GPL so they decided to pursue a different contract which didn't force them to disclose any of their source. They had to pay for this special license, as well they should.
Oh boy, grow up! This is pathetic.
I find this hard to believe, considering that even Windows NT scales better than Linux. But whatever FUD floats your boat...
No, but I do believe that Sun's portrayal of their license as just-as-free as the GPL and other "open source" licenses is dangerous. What the previous poster said makes perfect sense to me. What you can't seem to grasp is the having a truely "free" license is more important to some of us than any of the "goodies" that may lie buried in the Sun source code. People who comment on the "unfreeness" of Sun's license are just trying to remind those of us who agree that it is "dangerous" in our view to get involved in contributing to a non-free community. I think you are the one that is being overdramatic, as I don't think anyone even hinted that we believe we are forced to use the code. We know it's our choice, and I can't personally blame Sun for their stance. It is important, IMHO, to remind the truely free of us what is at stake here though.
But what do I care? I'm too busy taking GPL source code and building it into close-source applications. (Psst, nobody can tell the difference). So Code People Code!
You must be a MSContractor. Wait until the source opens and the legal papertrail hits your doorstep with a summons to appear...
this is mostly true man,
read Alan Cox latest benchmarks on the 2.4 SMP kernel. it smokes solaris by about 3000% and scales 4 times more efficiently.
coupled with the fact that quad intel xeon machines have about 5 times the I/O bandwidth and overall speed compared to suns "enterprise" line of hardware, and you have a clear winner. Linux.
also, the new ext3 fs is an absolute charm...real journaling technology for linux and it completely puts IRIX XFS to shame. we don't need XFS anyhow, weve seen it and we know how buggy and unstable it is...just look at IRIX itself.
Linux the choice of a GNU generation...
LiNuX MaN
GPL'd software is bait... It's tempting to use it and modify it, but sooner or later you wake up and find that you've been tricked into put enormous amounts of time and effort into software from which others receive all the profit.
That's how you can tell people who simply want to make a contribution from greedy types like RMS. The people who only want to contribute use MPL or LGPL, or simply release code into the public domain.
And how is voicing an opinion incompatible with a free market? If he thinks the licence is unfair then saying so loudly and attempting to discourage others from using it is an entirely appropriate course of action. People can listen (or not) as they choose, and if they find his opinions persuasive can elect not to use the product. The free flow of information is esential to the functioning of a free market, his opinion is just one more piece of information for potential customersto make use of.
It is your opinion. I am happy enough to have source code. After all , as a programmer my goal is not to change social contracts between people/companies - it is to create code ( and Open Source helps with that a lot)
Sun is beholden to the people who buy hardware, not to keeping controll over their closed code. By failure to embrace the Linux paradigm they are setting themselves up for failure when the rest of the marketplace goes to Linux, and thus they are also not looking out in their customers best interest. Screw them - it's time to go somewhere else.
Lets suppose that a company exists that can only differentiate itself from its competitors by the intellectual property in its software. While its hardware and service are good, they aren't overwhelmingly compelling, and the only way they can make money is to sell software because its good software and people use it.
Microsoft...
Sun doesn't want to open source their code. And they won't. They want people to build products using their intellectual property, and then pay them for it. In a tech world where it makes more sense to liscence a piece of the puzzle instead of doing your own, Sun is trying to get in on the sale of IP thing.
They want people (community) to work for them for FREE soi they can make money. Doesn't this seem unfair to you?
Sun is no different from MS except that they are making themselves seem like they are supporting the community when they are really just out to kill MS through less than honerable tactics. They don't want to alienate the OSS community so they make it seem like they like us. They are wolves in sheep's clothing...
My journal has hot
No kidding. Check out this zdnet article. You got to love this quote:
IIRC, what happened is the one guy was the chief guy behind the Novel clustering project. He wrote the whole thing in pretty much undocumented C and when he left Novel, he took his hard drive with him. Novel sued and eventually he returned the hard drive, damaged and unreadable. But I'm too lazy to do a longer search to find out if I'm remembering correctly.
Which does raise the question, why should we believe them now?
This is America and I will just claim prior art. In fact, I can claim better prior art as I now have your IP.
'Cheats' will be caught indeed. What a joke.
Here's a very simple idea.
:-). I'm willing to pay a fair price for others, companies or otherwise, to do what I can't.
We need companies to develop things. Things like hardware. Things I can't develop in my own house (a chip fab plan is a little over my household budget
Do commercial companies need US! to develop software for them???!!! If the answer is yes, then they should be willing to abide by our requirements if they expect our support. Companies should not expect us to provide free labor to them so they can go around and sell it back to us at a healthy margin.
If the answer is no, companies don't need our help to develop software for them, then they are free to release their code under any license they choose. They should not, however, approach our community with the premise that their license is "free" and deserves just as much respect/attention as others. That, IMO, assumes that we are a ignorant of business/licensing issues and are just a bunch of idiot savant like programmers who have no talent in other fields and can't even comprehend the trick they are trying to play on us. That is very offensive to me. (Even though I expect a BIG shipment of Sun hardware next week at work and am excited about getting it all setup, I won't get sucked into developing software for Sun instead of my true Community).
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
> We need companies to develop things. Things like :-). I'm willing to
> hardware. Things I can't develop in my own house (a chip fab
> plan is a little over my household budget
> pay a fair price for others, companies or otherwise, to do
> what I can't.
Yes, we need companies for things that are expensive to produce - but
software is not expensive to produce - anyone with a PC can develop
software for nothing but the cost of their own time. But the big
companies want to put a stop to that - it's a threat to them. They
would prefer software to be as expensive to produce as the hardware,
so that only "big players" could do it, and thus there would not be
as much competition for them.
Software patents are a tool to prevent the development of software
at low cost, a way to make software as expensive to produce as hardware.
Only those with the money to license and cross-license patents will be
able to develop software. A professor wrote into PCWeek claiming patents
were good, and actually helped spur innovation in software -- he's right,
they do -- if you're a big company and can affort to pay for the licensing.
A license like Sun's is a way to close the door to the "upstart" free software
developers. If this sort of licensing and the "too-general" software patenting
continues, eventually the big players will have gotten their way and the only
way to develop software will be to work for one of them (and of course, turn over
all your rights to it to them).
It's a battle between big businesses and "the people". I think the people will
eventually win, because software is just too easy to develop to squelch it out
entirely. But things may get worse before they get better, and we (the people)
must be vigilant to be sure they (the big companies) don't win.
if not for copyrights, there would be natural incentive to open source. Keeping information open is good for productivity (eg Safeway Groceries benefits greatly when all the other grocery stores use the same bar-code standard), but imagine for a minute what would happen if stores were suddenly "entitled" to own their own bar-code standards and forbid competitors from using them. Then there would be so many closed bar-code systems, and so much fragmentation that it would make it impossible for stores to act in the customers best interest. The same is true with copyrights in the commercial world, it changes it from a solutions world into a monopoly board game. The GPL is only meaningfull because it undose much of the "entitlement" damage done by copyrights.
Bruce, I know you read ./ and post from time to time. I would be interested in your take on this comment. If this turns out true, what are the possible implications from this?
Finkployd
It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Open Source Initiative, they guys who coined that term. If you go read their site, you'll find out that by Open Source they mean exactly what the Free Software Foundation means with Free Software or what Debian means with their Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Alejo.
Now, I realize that this may go against all of the established dogma of the nerd world, but open your minds just a crack and you'll totally understand the SCSL.
Lets suppose that a company exists that can only differentiate itself from its competitors by the intellectual property in its software. While its hardware and service are good, they aren't overwhelmingly compelling, and the only way they can make money is to sell software because its good software and people use it.
Now, why would that company open source its products? So that someone else can use their intellectual property to improve their products?
More importantly, why would anyone want to contribute code to such a product?? That's the problem with the SCSL. No one *wants* to see a code fork, but a true Open Source license gives both the Customers using the software, and the independent developers contributing to the software the assurence that they *can* fork if they have to.
Basically, if it's open source then you know that your software company doesn't have you completely over a barrel. If they start taking the software in a stupid direction, you can get together with other disgruntled users of the package, hire some programmers, and fork.
Nope. Because all the companies have different intents.
Does Sun portray their license as just as free as GPL? I think that Sun has done a very good job portraying what they intend their license to do. They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
It's not open-source, and it's not meant to be. It's meant to make it easy for corporations to intergrate with their projects without having to also open their projects.
The GPL and SCSL are not only different, but are meant for completely different goals. What each of them were meant to do, they do, and do well. Let's Cheer For Choice!!
-Brent--
I don't know what to think about the SCSL.
Sometimes I think this is a good thing for Sun's customers that want to look at it and that may want to license Sun's code. And now that Sun seems to be clearer that it is not an Open Source license then it's fine with me, it is better than totally closed source while not being totally Open Source and therefore not for me.
With this POV this is a step in the right direction.
But sometimes the SCSL appears to me like a "sect". That is, it is easy to enter the sect/community but once you are in this is very hard to get out and you are never sure to ever get rid of it.
It is easy to have access to Sun's code but once you have read it you hardly can prove you didn't use it for your own Free Software. This is why I would avoid any code under this license, or any similar license, because I fear (rightly or not) that it may restrain my liberty to code software related to what code I saw.
I don't say that it was Sun's incentive (put people in a dangerous position if they do both SCSL and Open Source) to create the SCSL but it looks like this could be one of the consequences, so I will avoid this kind of license like the plague and if I was an employer I would forbid my employees to look at it and ask new employees on their exposure until their is some clarification of the SCSL made to avoid this problem.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Oh, get real! The times of "home-grown" software beyond some small utitlities are long over. To create useful software, you need many people working on it, and that's expensive. If a lot of people work for free on an open-source project, they are sharing the costs, but still the costs are there.
As you probably are fully aware, even WinNT scales better than the penguin on server hardware. And Sun hardware basically outperforms x86 in every aspect... Remember, x86 still uses the same basics as it did when it ran in 4.77MHz and had 4 color CGA graphics, or monocrome Hercules.
well I'm old and I like open-source because it is simply a more competitive paradigm to closed source. Besides since you're so good at econimics tell me how the law of supply and demand works with intellectual property. Any idiot could figure out that copyrights have no natural limits on supply, but there is plenty of limits on service, distribution technology, and support - so therefore that's what should be own-able. right??
Regardless of what people here think, ultimately somebody is always going to try and take the idea and run with it to make money. While they are running do you think they are going to look back and care about OSS? Hell no. They are going to run straight ahead and try and bully/push away anything in their path(this includes USING OSS and the community to get there). Welcome to the business world (something I personally think that the /. community needs to be slapped with).
Sun, on the other hand, is all talk and no action. It's certainly a case of the boy who cried wolf. By the time they do release something with the source with a license meeting the open source definition, no one will believe it or care.
Now this is just my opinion, but it seems as if Sun just wants to grab media attention, or at least the attention of the open source community, without having to actually do anything. It doesn't help that everytime they do this it ends up on some news outlet such as Slashdot, LinuxToday, etc. We only fuel them and make them think it's acceptable.
Personally, I think we should all ignore Sun and their press releases until they can demonstrate that they're ready to make a commitment to open source. Enlisting the help of someone such as Bruce Perens or ESR to assist them probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Just my two cents worth.
> He wrote the whole thing in pretty much
;-P
> undocumented C and when he left Novell, he took
> his hard drive with him.
OK, taking the hard drive home is pretty poor. But undocumented C, wow, never seen that before. Whaddya mean he might have had a ridiculous deadline to meet? No fucking way man, programmers not only love to write documentation, but our managers ALWAYS allow enough time for it.
Anyways, I'm willing to be that both sides are sinners (I'd expect nothing less from any real programmer) and neither is really in a place to judge the other.
So draw your own conclusions about what's better for Linux. The smarter people at Novell can always get another job if their market dries up.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
Wouldn't a double licensing like the QPL and a proprietary license have the same effect?
1. The Open Source license make sure it is open, but may impose conditions on the maintener (that is what the QPL do it seems to me).
2. The proprietary license allow them to license the code for a fee to companies wanting to include it in proprietary software.
And they would have avoided the problem we have now.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Imagine the power of having an object represent every workstation, server, printer, application, etc etc in your arganization. That's what DS are all about NDS is the best, and no one is even close.
Actually, I think it does. I was at SGI's presentation at the Atlanta Linux Show where they were talking about XFS. The technology looks very impressive, but one of the major obstacles they had was that a major component of the XFS technology was licenced from another party, so they needed to recreate the subsystem before releasing the full product. Also, considering the system-critical nature of a file system, I don't really have a problem with them trying to put more debugging and polish on it -- a month ago, they had gotten about half of the file system primitives done -- you could create files and read from them, but not yet write to them.
I don't care if Novel is doing it, or disgruntled ex-employees; I will be happy to see NDS available as Free Software. Certainly Novell has no reason to keep the NDS client software closed. Opening the NetWare and NDS clients could only serve to increase their market penetration.
Freeing the NDS server would require some serious reworking of Novell's business model, so I'd be more surprised to see that open. Let's just wait and see what happens.
I for one, will happily use TRG's GPL'ed software, now that I know they exist. They need to get out more, I've been searching for Free Netware-Linux interoperability solutions for six months now and never came across them.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
1. Even if the source opened, who could tell after I have ripped off your f*cking IP
2. There is nobody to sue me.
3. (the killer this), WHO CAN TELL WHO COPIED WHO?
Get a grip here. The Courts (behind which your precious GPL cowers) would have to determine where the 'questionable' source came from. I simply claim that I predate you and shove a summons onto you. The years go by and the Lawyers make lots of money. The GPL just lost.
Its too funny. EVERYONE AT IT!!!
Please die and make room for someone with at least some ambition.
I do also question whether or not anyone else should accept SCSL-ware. I think it doesn't give outside developers a fair quid-pro-quo, so I don't think we should contribute our own code to it. I think it doesn't give users everything that Open Source does.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's very simple. Any author can release their code in any license they want. An author can also
release their code under multiple licenses. Microsoft apparently didn't want to abide by the rules of
the GPL so they decided to pursue a different contract which didn't force them to disclose any of their
source. They had to pay for this special license, as well they should.
Exactly. When you're Microsoft, it's much cheaper to buy Jeff's port of NetwareFS to Windows, and let him deal with worrying about getting it working, than it is to download his GPLed Linux code and port it yourself (note: b/c of the way IFS works on Win2k, I think MS could have legally made a GPLed filesystem w/o it rendering their whole kernel GPL. I could be wrong, though, and IANAL).
Just to clarify: There is already excellent IPX (the NetWare protocol) _and_ NCP (the NetWare network filesystem) support in Linux, giving you everything you need to connect to a NetWare server, read/write files, etc. (There is something called MARS as well, which lets you emulate a NetWare server, but I haven't been able to get it to work.) All you need is the Linux kernel and a copy of ncptools, which is (as you say) OSS. This works great, and I use it for my everyday work at school. Pretty bug-free, even, and with all the administrative tools you'll need.
:-)
Just so people wouldn't go mad looking around at the web
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
I'm not familiar with the SCSL licence, what is it?
so we have the GPL, the LGPL, and the BSD licenses, plus an assortment of other licenses that are all a little different by netscape, novell, etc. anyone have any desire to make a fill in the blanks with the company name license that matches the intent of all the company name licenses so there is less confusion?
Why do we need so many open source licenses? What's wrong with the GPL?
Yet another example that in the future that the way business grow in the technology sector will not be in products but in education in services.
See recent posts on linux-kernel by Jeff Merkey. Basically, there's a private firm of ex-Novell employees (the good people who all quit--Merkey wrote Novell's SMP kernel, for example) who are implementing Netware file system support (GPLed for Linux, sold to Microsoft to be in Service Pack #1 of Windows 2k). Now that that's done, they're moving on to NDS.
When the Timpanogas Group gets those two items finished, there will be no reason in the world why you can't instantly migrate any Novell setup to Linux or NT. And, there will be lots of reasons to do it....
Obviously, Novell is scared shitless over all this. They've fought Timpanogas in court, and lost, so now they're trying to FUD to stall public acceptance of the Timpanogas Group code--why run TRG NDS when you can allegedly wait 6 months for the "real thing" from Novell? Of course, if you wait for the code from Novell, you're going to wind up waiting for Godot....
See, for example, this post of leaked internal Novell discussions.
Why can't some people understand that we need companies to develop things? Where would we be today if there were no commercial ("proprietary") software? Where would we be if companies like Sun weren't around to build new hardware? Speaking of "sickening and sad", I can't stand the hatred towards companies that seek to make money from their work. Sun's SCSL is a great thing for their customers, as they get the extra security of having the source. Who are you to tell them it's bad because it's "treason" and not the GPL?
What is novell genna do now?
:)
this is a good question, my best guess is that they are genna open source their current stuff, and move into another area, to make money, or are they going to release some of their products under open source. This is very Interresting.
Maybe Free 250 user sever for linux
NT scales better than Linux according to MS-funded benchmarks. Big Wow. Astroturfer.
Linux has plenty of commercial apps, the numbers are growing daily. At the same time, there are many FREE apps that perform equivalently to commercial win32 apps. Thus, the lack of commercail apps argument is doubly false, since you don't *need* commercial apps to do the same things.
More MS FUD. Astroturfer.
Let's get things straight. Solaris scales better than NT better than Linux. Sun hardware scales better x86 hardware. But scalability != performance. In small configurations, x86 hardware blows away Sun hardware for a fraction of a cost.
Eg, check out these TPC-C results from www.tpc.org.
Compaq ProLiant 8500-550-8P 40368.75 $745180
Sun Enterprise 3500 Server(8P) 21871.9 $1696397
Sun Enterprise 6500 Server(24P) 53049.97 $4031901
You need to go to a 24p Sun system to beat a 8P x86 system in performance. In addition, you have
to pay 5 times for comparable performance.
Just take the source code, hack it a little and build it into my proprietary application
One day, your evil greed will catch up to you after some sloppy work and your contractor might be vigilant after the fiasco with a mind to put you away in prison. Not likely, but politics change.
Better watch your back. Others are. If you are known to cheat, while others work their asses off, there will be a time and place for you...
I just read the email thread, and there is nothing in there that has me concerned. All it is is standard corporate discussions on how to approach a competitor. They were even actively seeking to partner with TRG. Everyone seemed to consider the lawyers done with. However, it seems that Jeff doesn't see it that way, thus the post.
Many open-source companies use the low-end free model. Look at Kaffee, and Sendmail. You own the source, you can set the license. I have no problem with them implementing a subset in an open-source project. If the license is right, and Bruce Perens seems to say it is OpenSource compliant, you can always fork.
As for Novell wanting to control the market for their linux apps. I say good luck and more power too them. If it is open-source, we all win anyways, so what do I care if people want to pay money to get a newer release of NDS. You are always free to add the features to the current release.
Jason PollockSure thing, asshole. Keep your source - we don't want it - we might 'break' it.
Novell needs to go with the Linux momentum and open source NDS. They'll still make boatloads of money on support.
Novell also needs to decouple the NDS server from Netware and let it run entirely on Solaris, Linux, SCO, AIX, etc. if they want to capture new customers. Netware is not gaining any new customers - they're just keeping existing customers.
Eric Raymond is, of course not commenting on any of this. After all, why should his bloated ego get diluted by Bruce?
Easier to cry TROLL than deal with the issue.
I'm a M$ and Red $at troll and this is how I and millions like me cheat the GPL every day. Just take the source code, hack it a little and build it into my proprietary application Shock Horror! I'm told that I will have legal action taken against me. I quake in my boots (with laughter that is):- 1. Even if my source is finally 'opened', who could tell after I have ripped off your f*cking IP 2. There is nobody to sue me. Perens? Raymond? I dont think so. 3. (the killer this), WHO CAN TELL WHO COPIED WHO? The Courts (behind which your precious GPL cowers) would have to determine where the 'questionable' source came from. I simply claim that I predate you and shove a summons onto you. The years go by and the Lawyers make lots of money. The GPL just lost and I have the code. Hmmm, better yet, I file a patent with it :-) Its too funny. EVERYONE's AT IT!!!
Here's what I've culled from several stories on the subject...
mrfantasy mentioned DigitalMe above - I have also seen mention of the management interface for ICS (the Internet Caching System), and more importantly, the NDS for Linux client. I would absolutely love to see NWAdmin, along with the (vital) plugins for administration of ZEN and other NDS extensions, running on a Linux platform. Yes, I know that ConsoleOne is the future direction of Netware administration - but there are far too many critical administrative functions that do not run on that platform yet.
The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life
Now, I realize that this may go against all of the established dogma of the nerd world, but open your minds just a crack and you'll totally understand the SCSL.
Lets suppose that a company exists that can only differentiate itself from its competitors by the intellectual property in its software. While its hardware and service are good, they aren't overwhelmingly compelling, and the only way they can make money is to sell software because its good software and people use it.
Now, why would that company open source its products? So that someone else can use their intellectual property to improve their products? Not a compelling business model. But what if they just want to lower the barriers to liscencing their code to third party software developers? They could create a psuedo-open liscence that allows people to see why they should liscence the code for commercial products, and they make it easier for people to get started. The company makes money when the liscencees turn out finished products.
Sun doesn't want to open source their code. And they won't. They want people to build products using their intellectual property, and then pay them for it. In a tech world where it makes more sense to liscence a piece of the puzzle instead of doing your own, Sun is trying to get in on the sale of IP thing.
Not all software needs to be GPLed. And Sun doesn't think theirs should be. The think you should have the right to admire, use, and then pay for it so that they can feed their families, too.
Andrew Gardner
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
Novell is a sunset company grasping at anything that would keep them afloat.
I'm sure that the Open Source zealots would welcome an organization 'Open Sourcing' their trash cans. At some point over the next couple of years, the hideous truth will emerge that only a very few make decent money from Open Source 'edutation' and 'services', the masses just scratching by.
But what do I care? I'm too busy taking GPL source code and building it into close-source applications. (Psst, nobody can tell the difference). So Code People Code!
I think that the Sun "community" source license is dangerous. It seems that the SCSL is a deliberate attempt at stopping the popularity of Free Software.
By providing developers with easy ways to get at their source but keeping complete control over what is happening with that source (don't try to fix a bug or add a feature and distribute your improvements to anybody unless you can pay lots of money to Sun for testing/compatability "support") they can stop any innovation that they don't want. But at the same time they have now legally prevented people from doing something simular since they have seen Suns "Intellectual Property".
I surely hope my employer doesn't think something like this is a "step in the right direction" and order me to look at the "Community" source code, because then they have effectively tight my (and their!) hands to improve on the ideas in any way that is a treat to Sun. If you accept the license terms that Sun dictates it will be very difficult to ever do anything (as Free Software or even proprietary software) without fear of having accepted Suns terms.
Please don't fall into this trap! Don't accept Sun source code because it is now easy to become part of their "community". You will later regret it if Sun sends laywers because you have seen source code that effectively belongs to Sun (and not to the community you thought you where part of).
I'm a Microsoft stooge, and I thought your post was flamebait.
If an application that has been commersial goes OSS that CAN be a good thing, but only if the source is under some control.
:)
One of the things that annoys me the most is that most programs out there (on freshmeat for example) are made by people that know how to code but totally lack the ability to plan ahead, instead they set up the goal of version 0.1.0 to be 1/10 of what they expect it once it has been PATCHED a 100 times by a 100 different people and reached version 1.0.0
What they should do is this:
PLAN, brainstorm about features, make structures and flow charts, anything, but DON'T write a single line of code until you know how you are going to implement ALL features you want.
planning first and coding later = quality
coding to get a minimal feature version out as quick as possible = kludge...
and what i've seen so far from everything i've downloaded the latter seems to be the case.
i've also noticed maintainers happily applying patches after patches as long as they work, they never ask themselves if it is kludge code or not or if they can do better themselves.
if i were to develop an OSS application from scratch the first version that would come out would be 1.0.0, all the development from 0.1.0 to 1.0.0 would be "closed" source with only Selected people working on it, and i would not start coding until i know exactly how all internals will be connected (infact this is the way i do it, it's my first rule, code in a way that makes any routine replacable and allows for easy feature adding later on)
disclaimer:
english ain't my native language, so don't comment my spelling or grammar.
this is not flamebait, it's simply me expressing my opinions.
if you wonder why i sometimes use a Capital letter when i start a sentence and other times no capital letter, it is because i FEEL like it
If you find . (dots) and , (commas) in wierd places it is also because i feel like it
don't bother replying if the answer is directed towards me personally, i prolly wont read it (i know i forgot a ' in won't, i did it on purpose be cause it's more optimized that way.. hehe)
have a nice night (or day... naturally)
OSS - good in a few cases, bad in some
No
Damn
Print
Service
Oh how I loved you que based printing.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
learn english, in case it's your mother tongue (it's not mine) Yes, queue based network printing was OK, but NDPS is great if you implement it carefully and with SUPPORTED PRINTERS, duh! And, you can STILL use queues, noone forced you to use NDPS. Novell isn't Microsoft, you can still buy NetWare 3.2, and even NetWare 3.11 is supported.
Why did you expect ESR to reply? I specifically asked for Bruce's input since I have known him to read and post on slashdot, and since this story directly mentioned him.
Finkployd
-- ultra1
I don't quite understand why /.ers bash Sun so relentlessly. How many of you (not employed by Sun, of course) have written a single line of code that's used in the Solaris code base? Not too bloody many, I'd bet. It is a product that they've developed, and, as such, they have every right to profit from it. Before the SCSL was introduced, was there an outcry for Sun to put Solaris under the GPL? No. Why should there be one now (claiming that Sun is doing things "half-assed" is equivalent to asking them to "truly" open source their software) that they've made it a little freer (in both the free beer and freedom senses of "free" (granted, not as free as the GPL, but freer none the less)).
Claiming that this license is going to confuse the public and/or potential contributors to GPLed projects is just plain wrong. The general public cares little for these ideological differences (e.g. Microsoft's almost complete domination of the desktop). Any developer smart enough to contribute to the Solaris or Linux code base is smart enough to figure out the differences between the SCSL and GPL. This isn't a moral question, people.
dmd
I stand corrected, SGI did have many important Open Source contributions under their belt - however it is true that they have not been very open in their 'Open Source' development. Does it take that long to go through their XFS source?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
(1) Novell NetWare is IMHO an excellent NOS (network operating system) for file and print serving. Starting with NetWare 5, Novell is attempting to crack the application server market (currently owned by midrange systems, NT, and *nix). The programming environment they now focus on is Java. The current head of Novell, Eric Schmidt, came from Sun's Javasoft division.
(2) A while back Novell announced "Wolf Mountain" clustering technology. Soon after, a new company called "Wolfpack" announced 3rd party clustering technology for NetWare. Novell sued Wolfpack for stealing trade secrets. It turns out that a number of key Novell developers had formed Wolfpack.
(3) A court ordered Wolfpack to stop some activities and change their name. Their new name was Timpanogas (dot com).
(4) Novell has a large market share in NOS software. They also own the directory market with NDS. Their best product is NDS. It allows sharing of user data between OS's, including NetWare and NT. The practical benefit of NDS is having one username/one password between many systems. NDS is a very secure system. I don't know if it's ever been cracked.
(5) NT has increasingly challenged NetWare's market share. And Linux now challenges NetWare and NT's market share.
(6) To address NT's shortcoming in directory services, Windows 2000 will include "Active Directory." It's likely the technology will suck rocks for years. It's taken Novell 10 years to get NDS right. But due to Microsoft's market presence, Active Directory will probably be a big hit.
(7) Linux has no directory service. Except Kerberos, and that is too complicated for ordinary mortals. NDS is available for some *nix's, like Solaris.
(8) Timpanogas is releasing a lot of open source NetWare compatible software for Linux. This is most likely making the Novell people angry.
(9) Novell may release enough of NDS to make an open source NDS client for Linux. They might also sell a commercial NDS server for Linux. But they are an old school proprietary software company. They will never open source the whole of NDS (IMHO).
(10) For many years, Novell's share price (NOVL) foundered. Then Eric Schmidt took over and the share price took off like a rocket. But Novell declined to open source NDS, Microsoft announced Active Directory, and Novell's share price quickly died off.
(11) Conclusion: Novell is dead unless they open source all of NDS and become a services company. Linux desperately needs a good open source or GPL based directory project that is administrable by non-immortals.
(12)An assumption. IMHO, Linux should focus on workstations, handhelds, and basically the client side. Figuring out the high end can come later. That would basically follow Microsoft's path to success. (Low end first, then high end.)
Go Linux!!!
I am not a lawyer.
Given the postulate in the subject of the previous message (Sun's License Sucks Ass...), and the fact that the name of the license is the acronym SCSL, we can say that this acronym expands to the following:
/.ers will agree with.
Sun's Crap-Sucking License
which I think many