Too many forget how much Sun is suffering from not responding to the Linux kernel several years ago. A big price now is the management problem they have got to catch up. Investing more money into this problem is not good enough; a miracle of sorts is needed.
If the superficial public discussions are anything to go by, Sun does not have the right process underway to make OpenSolaris under GPLv3 pay off for them. The resistance to the GPL is inevitable and natural. Sun may indeed succeed in spite of dwindling *Solaris, but unless they improve their tactics, why waste more time on *Solaris?
The position statement betrays some denial about the management problem. What some of the OpenSolaris devs characterize as FUD is really just indifference to the goodies they like to brag about. They fail to understand that bragging in this case is a double-edged sword, just as the position statement itself is; people turn whatever envy they might have not into a revelation about *Solaris paradise but instead into simple inspiration to copy whatever good ideas are left to make *Solaris worth discussing in the present tense.
While a few comments on this story rightly question the survey and of how the Gates Foundation aids Microsoft's reputation and in turn its dealings, there is an embarrassingly uncritical acceptance here of practices of the Gates Foundation itself. Some criticisms involve questions of: (1) diversity, (2) promotion of abortion and contraception, (3) investment in oil companies and drug companies, and (4) diversion of health care resources. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gate s_Foundation#Criticisms)
In principle, a charity is, of course, a good thing. However, in practice, especially with such a disproportionately influential and powerful charity as the Gates foundation, a healthy skepticism can increase accountability, which, after all, any honest dogooders would have no problem with.
Such code would seem to be potentially problematic to start with, since if its in any way dependent on material (including interfaces) from the GPL v2-only kernel code, licensing under GPL v2 with the "or later" clause would seem to be a violation of the GPL v2-only license on the kernel itself.
There are no problems. Clearly, the linux kernel source contains both v2 and v2+ code and so as a whole can only be distributed under v2. Nothing including Linus Torvalds can stop anyone from taking v2+ code and distributing it under v3. Moreover, the individual copyright holders of the v2+ code can turn around and license their code however they want for other projects -- why not those under v3?
He's not saying that it will not happen. Indeed, he has been positive in this link and elsewhere on v3 and its drafting process.
Here is a helpful reminder about Sun's considerations:
"I made it clear, back at launch time,'" said Phipps, "that we couldn't use GPL 2 because the source licensing in Solaris was so diverse. It's really not even an option, although we did explore it."
So license compatibility was a sticking point that v3 likely solves for Sun. I wish they would comment on why v3 and its permission/restriction clause does not make the CDDL superfluous for them. Maybe CDDL remaining just placates anti-GPL people.
No, you have fallen for a common misconception. While the kernel itself cannot be forked to v3, much of the code in the kernel is indeed licensed with the v2 or later clause and therefore can be used towards contributions to OpenSolaris under v3.
OpenSolaris under v3 makes it easier for code to go from the Linux kernel to OpenSolaris and not vice versa, which is good for Sun. A public corporate endorsement like this would spur adoption of v3.
Sun makes a big deal about adding licenses and not replacing them, so merely adding a v3 option to the CDDL one would do nothing for developers not wanting to help Tivoization a la Linux. In general, new contributors want to know their benefit in exchange for assigning copyright to Sun. Sun will have to appreciate the Tivoization issue as compromising their message to the community. Maybe after the license addition and enough (commercial) developers seeing the sky not falling with OpenSolaris under v3, Sun could comment on why using v3 and its exception clause cannot cover what they feel they need CDDL for.
On the whole, everyone should cut Sun some major slack. They seem to have been cooperating on issues of freedom more than other companies and even some projects such as the leading kernel developers.
You might need to resort to reading arguments other than the usual suspects such as GNU, etc. Consider the _Wealth of Networks_ by Professor Yochai Benkler in either hardcopy or online format. In particular, see Part III, "Policies of Freedom at a Moment of Transformation":
You state what you think your top priority is. You clearly assume that this matters more than other issues, such as upholding an ethical position. You likely believe that non-free software is not unethical. Is your understanding of the issues perfect? Of course not -- no one's is. Therefore, consider a little argument against the notion of things such as non-free software (not from RMS or the FSF, BTW):
-----
Why is the abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information unethical?
The abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information (as defined in USC 17) is unethical for three main reasons, all taken in conjunction with each other:
* Arbitrary copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally does not cause harm to anyone. When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. The person from which the information is copied (say an author or an inventor) retains the information in exactly the same state. What has happened is that two copies of the same piece of published information arise. What is done with the second copy does not affect what is done with the first copy, ceterus paribus.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally causes harm to the progress of the sciences and the arts. One instance is in the case of software. Suppose I publish a program that does rational drug design (makes it easier to find drugs for diseases) and is generally found useful by individuals all over. Suppose you're able to modify the program and make it even more better at rational drug design and distribute it. I can, under current Copyright and Patent law, for whatever reasons I wish, control you and prevent you from doing this even though your modification would be beneficial to everyone. This causes a lot of harm to people, even though the modification itself does not cause harm to me.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information also abridges your freedom of speech, expression, and your freedom to think freely. As in the above situation, suppose I publish a program for drug design, and claim all "intellectual property rights" associated with the creation. You can't even begin to do research (legally) on the program without licensing it from me, i.e., your freedom to even think about what the program does and improve its workings is abridged. Further, you're forbidden from repeating the program (and its improvements) to someone else. In other words, you're forbidden from telling people what your thoughts are, even if they are so uncreative as to be identical to what you've heard or seen before. What this ultimately boils down to is that your freedom to obtain knowledge, store and process that knowledge, and spread that knowledge as you see fit, is abridged. Thus people are constantly forced to re-invent the wheel rather than copy and use or modify existing information.
I cringe every time RMS steps out into the scene. It's like trying to tell someone to stop beating his dog, and having PETA step out; or having one of your friends jokingly call you a fag, and having half of Gay Pride suddenly show up behind him; or groping your girlfriend, and having three women from NOW jump up from the next table and tell you how much of an asshole you are and start yelling out into the whole restaurant how guys are all pigs.
Yeah, people speaking out against wrongdoing is so overrated.
RMS is the definition of a modern politician.
And yeah, modern politicians are so notorious for sticking to their principles and speaking frankly.
It's easy to see the crap, but we need not look to RMS for it.
One of the biggest lies is that DRM is somehow neutral, say the way
that knives are neutral. It's a lie because it ignores the
overwhelming pressure upon groups that naturally have an
interest in controlling others others such as corporations and
governments, the kind of pressure that creates laws eroding civil
liberties such as DMCA, etc. Control by DRM is in principle much more
efficient than control by other means and thus all the more appealing
to control freaks such as Gates.
I've seen projections for virtually all PCs to have TC/DRM within five
years; of course, given the current overall apathy about it, any widely
used OS will support it, and embedded devices will be first. The "economic
argument" in which we assume we can always buy the nonstandard system free
of control does not wash: nonstandard will be more expensive, and once
again only the wealthy few will be able to preserve their freedom.
As an alternative to cynicism, check out
DefectiveByDesign.org
for recent updates on the efforts against DRM.
...but thanks to free software, I think there will finally be some checks and balances on not just one of the most duplicitous corporations of all time, but on many corporations that depend on controlling the media. Indeed, if, in a distant future, Microsoft eventually changes away from the proprietary software business, perhaps they would be a better company. However, until that time, they seem to continue being dangerous liars and equivocators bent on total control. I am afraid that a good bit of even their lower-level people are also acting badly. Many other posts have detailed their bad effects, but one effect is in the widespread cynicism of users about technology. Free software will have to help undo that damage.
For me, mere disgust, distruct, and dislike for Microsoft has replaced hatred.:)
Apparently this is now part of a
larger strategy to create more University level students accustomed to
using and developing proprietary software. "They have decided that the
best way to increase enrollment is to work with universities to
incorporate robotics and computer games into the computer science
curriculum as class projects where students can exercise their
technical skills." The robotics and computer games would be developed
using various Microsoft proprietary software tools instead of the
currently preferred Open Source/Free software tools.
Something far more sinister is afoot than just Novl opting to be msft's lap dog.
What stands out most to me is a pattern of an anticompetitive Microsoft's increasing efforts to paint competitors as "anti-business". The noise around this deal inevitably takes on more of this characteristic with increased marketing from Microsoft: you can see it spreading in the form of editorials, "perspectives", etc.
Very likely many SUSE licenses will indeed be distributed in a hurry either from Novell or Microsoft. When GPLv3 is published, the sh*t hit will hit the fan, Novell customers will be stuck, the Microsoft FUD engine will be at its max, it will point out how free software licenses are anti-business, and create ever more FUD. Microsoft will waste untold talent and resources for the noble purpose of guaranteeing their monopoly by destroying free software.
Readers can keep up-to-date with efforts that continue to expose this sham of a deal.
This survey is "fertilizer" for "growing" poor decisions. Expect many "concerned citizens" to note that interoperability is not such a bad thing. This "concern" will increase in the form of comments everywhere, editorials on ZDNet, CNet, etc. and will spread like a plague to distract people from Microsoft's real goal: to guarantee their monopoly by destroying the GPL and free software.
...is "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan, in both video and book forms. Corporations are of greater power than ever, and it is helpful to take a break at least once in a great while from media that is, after all, owned by corporations.
The communism vs. capitalism distinction is worn out and unproductive, and both the presentation and "The Corporation" are good examples of efforts to draw finer distinctions and alleviate the systematic perpetuation of human suffering.
There will naturally be astroturfers without a conscience, but if the honest cynics patiently consider these efforts, they might find reason to look to a better world.
WARNING: The good part of the Register article are the quotes from Moglen, who knows his subject. The reporter who wrote the article, however, makes basic mistakes. E.g.,
"But why use a contract upgrade rather than filing a lawsuit to scupper the deal, which might produce a clearer result in the long term? Moglen himself couldn't be drawn on specifics, but the view amongst free (rather than open) strategists suggests that elements of the deal make litigation undesirable - even if it is legally justified."
You already know about the Balmer thing, but maybe you need to think it over again without deal-fluff: a taste of things to come and you can thank Novell for it.
This alleged exploit and its reactions of paranoia or debunkings are just noise. Sanitize now.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many forget how much Sun is suffering from not responding to the Linux kernel several years ago. A big price now is the management problem they have got to catch up. Investing more money into this problem is not good enough; a miracle of sorts is needed.
If the superficial public discussions are anything to go by, Sun does not have the right process underway to make OpenSolaris under GPLv3 pay off for them. The resistance to the GPL is inevitable and natural. Sun may indeed succeed in spite of dwindling *Solaris, but unless they improve their tactics, why waste more time on *Solaris?
The position statement betrays some denial about the management problem. What some of the OpenSolaris devs characterize as FUD is really just indifference to the goodies they like to brag about. They fail to understand that bragging in this case is a double-edged sword, just as the position statement itself is; people turn whatever envy they might have not into a revelation about *Solaris paradise but instead into simple inspiration to copy whatever good ideas are left to make *Solaris worth discussing in the present tense.
While a few comments on this story rightly question the survey and of how the Gates Foundation aids Microsoft's reputation and in turn its dealings, there is an embarrassingly uncritical acceptance here of practices of the Gates Foundation itself. Some criticisms involve questions of: (1) diversity, (2) promotion of abortion and contraception, (3) investment in oil companies and drug companies, and (4) diversion of health care resources. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gate s_Foundation#Criticisms)
In principle, a charity is, of course, a good thing. However, in practice, especially with such a disproportionately influential and powerful charity as the Gates foundation, a healthy skepticism can increase accountability, which, after all, any honest dogooders would have no problem with.
There are no problems. Clearly, the linux kernel source contains both v2 and v2+ code and so as a whole can only be distributed under v2. Nothing including Linus Torvalds can stop anyone from taking v2+ code and distributing it under v3. Moreover, the individual copyright holders of the v2+ code can turn around and license their code however they want for other projects -- why not those under v3?
He's not saying that it will not happen. Indeed, he has been positive in this link and elsewhere on v3 and its drafting process.
Here is a helpful reminder about Sun's considerations:
"I made it clear, back at launch time,'" said Phipps, "that we couldn't use GPL 2 because the source licensing in Solaris was so diverse. It's really not even an option, although we did explore it."
So license compatibility was a sticking point that v3 likely solves for Sun. I wish they would comment on why v3 and its permission/restriction clause does not make the CDDL superfluous for them. Maybe CDDL remaining just placates anti-GPL people.
No, you have fallen for a common misconception. While the kernel itself cannot be forked to v3, much of the code in the kernel is indeed licensed with the v2 or later clause and therefore can be used towards contributions to OpenSolaris under v3.
OpenSolaris under v3 makes it easier for code to go from the Linux kernel to OpenSolaris and not vice versa, which is good for Sun. A public corporate endorsement like this would spur adoption of v3.
Sun makes a big deal about adding licenses and not replacing them, so merely adding a v3 option to the CDDL one would do nothing for developers not wanting to help Tivoization a la Linux. In general, new contributors want to know their benefit in exchange for assigning copyright to Sun. Sun will have to appreciate the Tivoization issue as compromising their message to the community. Maybe after the license addition and enough (commercial) developers seeing the sky not falling with OpenSolaris under v3, Sun could comment on why using v3 and its exception clause cannot cover what they feel they need CDDL for.
On the whole, everyone should cut Sun some major slack. They seem to have been cooperating on issues of freedom more than other companies and even some projects such as the leading kernel developers.
You might need to resort to reading arguments other than the usual
/ part-3.htm
suspects such as GNU, etc. Consider the _Wealth of Networks_ by
Professor Yochai Benkler in either hardcopy or online format. In
particular, see Part III, "Policies of Freedom at a Moment of
Transformation":
http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks
You state what you think your top priority is. You clearly assume that this matters more than other issues, such as upholding an ethical position. You likely believe that non-free software is not unethical. Is your understanding of the issues perfect? Of course not -- no one's is. Therefore, consider a little argument against the notion of things such as non-free software (not from RMS or the FSF, BTW):
-----
Why is the abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information unethical?
The abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information (as defined in USC 17) is unethical for three main reasons, all taken in conjunction with each other:
* Arbitrary copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally does not cause harm to anyone. When someone makes a copy of a certain piece of information that is published, there is no information lost. The person from which the information is copied (say an author or an inventor) retains the information in exactly the same state. What has happened is that two copies of the same piece of published information arise. What is done with the second copy does not affect what is done with the first copy, ceterus paribus.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information generally causes harm to the progress of the sciences and the arts. One instance is in the case of software. Suppose I publish a program that does rational drug design (makes it easier to find drugs for diseases) and is generally found useful by individuals all over. Suppose you're able to modify the program and make it even more better at rational drug design and distribute it. I can, under current Copyright and Patent law, for whatever reasons I wish, control you and prevent you from doing this even though your modification would be beneficial to everyone. This causes a lot of harm to people, even though the modification itself does not cause harm to me.
* Abridgement of the [freedom of] copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information also abridges your freedom of speech, expression, and your freedom to think freely. As in the above situation, suppose I publish a program for drug design, and claim all "intellectual property rights" associated with the creation. You can't even begin to do research (legally) on the program without licensing it from me, i.e., your freedom to even think about what the program does and improve its workings is abridged. Further, you're forbidden from repeating the program (and its improvements) to someone else. In other words, you're forbidden from telling people what your thoughts are, even if they are so uncreative as to be identical to what you've heard or seen before. What this ultimately boils down to is that your freedom to obtain knowledge, store and process that knowledge, and spread that knowledge as you see fit, is abridged. Thus people are constantly forced to re-invent the wheel rather than copy and use or modify existing information.
-----
(source: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copyin g_primer.html)
If you disagree with the given ethical position, please falsify it.
Upton Sinclair long ago figured out how cash is converted into opinions:
"It is hard to make a man understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
In particular, the following explains the pro-Microsoft comments we are seeing on Slashdot: Microsoft Shilling and Astroturfing
I cringe every time RMS steps out into the scene. It's like trying to tell someone to stop beating his dog, and having PETA step out; or having one of your friends jokingly call you a fag, and having half of Gay Pride suddenly show up behind him; or groping your girlfriend, and having three women from NOW jump up from the next table and tell you how much of an asshole you are and start yelling out into the whole restaurant how guys are all pigs.
Yeah, people speaking out against wrongdoing is so overrated.
RMS is the definition of a modern politician.
And yeah, modern politicians are so notorious for sticking to their principles and speaking frankly.
It's easy to see the crap, but we need not look to RMS for it.
One of the biggest lies is that DRM is somehow neutral, say the way that knives are neutral. It's a lie because it ignores the overwhelming pressure upon groups that naturally have an interest in controlling others others such as corporations and governments, the kind of pressure that creates laws eroding civil liberties such as DMCA, etc. Control by DRM is in principle much more efficient than control by other means and thus all the more appealing to control freaks such as Gates.
I've seen projections for virtually all PCs to have TC/DRM within five years; of course, given the current overall apathy about it, any widely used OS will support it, and embedded devices will be first. The "economic argument" in which we assume we can always buy the nonstandard system free of control does not wash: nonstandard will be more expensive, and once again only the wealthy few will be able to preserve their freedom. As an alternative to cynicism, check out DefectiveByDesign.org for recent updates on the efforts against DRM.
...but thanks to free software, I think there will finally be some checks and balances on not just one of the most duplicitous corporations of all time, but on many corporations that depend on controlling the media. Indeed, if, in a distant future, Microsoft eventually changes away from the proprietary software business, perhaps they would be a better company. However, until that time, they seem to continue being dangerous liars and equivocators bent on total control. I am afraid that a good bit of even their lower-level people are also acting badly. Many other posts have detailed their bad effects, but one effect is in the widespread cynicism of users about technology. Free software will have to help undo that damage.
:)
For me, mere disgust, distruct, and dislike for Microsoft has replaced hatred.
From an older article which shows Microsoft's intentions:
Apparently this is now part of a larger strategy to create more University level students accustomed to using and developing proprietary software. "They have decided that the best way to increase enrollment is to work with universities to incorporate robotics and computer games into the computer science curriculum as class projects where students can exercise their technical skills." The robotics and computer games would be developed using various Microsoft proprietary software tools instead of the currently preferred Open Source/Free software tools.
Gate's Laws of Robotics (shamelessly stolen from a past /. post)
1) A robot may not use a non-Microsoft product or through inaction,
allow a human being to use a non-Microsoft product.
2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Something far more sinister is afoot than just Novl opting to be msft's lap dog.
What stands out most to me is a pattern of an anticompetitive Microsoft's increasing efforts to paint competitors as "anti-business". The noise around this deal inevitably takes on more of this characteristic with increased marketing from Microsoft: you can see it spreading in the form of editorials, "perspectives", etc.
Very likely many SUSE licenses will indeed be distributed in a hurry either from Novell or Microsoft. When GPLv3 is published, the sh*t hit will hit the fan, Novell customers will be stuck, the Microsoft FUD engine will be at its max, it will point out how free software licenses are anti-business, and create ever more FUD. Microsoft will waste untold talent and resources for the noble purpose of guaranteeing their monopoly by destroying free software.
Readers can keep up-to-date with efforts that continue to expose this sham of a deal.
This survey is "fertilizer" for "growing" poor decisions. Expect many "concerned citizens" to note that interoperability is not such a bad thing. This "concern" will increase in the form of comments everywhere, editorials on ZDNet, CNet, etc. and will spread like a plague to distract people from Microsoft's real goal: to guarantee their monopoly by destroying the GPL and free software.
...is "The Corporation" by Joel Bakan, in both video and book forms. Corporations are of greater power than ever, and it is helpful to take a break at least once in a great while from media that is, after all, owned by corporations.
The communism vs. capitalism distinction is worn out and unproductive, and both the presentation and "The Corporation" are good examples of efforts to draw finer distinctions and alleviate the systematic perpetuation of human suffering.
There will naturally be astroturfers without a conscience, but if the honest cynics patiently consider these efforts, they might find reason to look to a better world.
DRM is exactly the same.. but they never complain the same way about DRM..
:)
Seems like a double standard to me..
False. It's Microsoft in this case, so I'm off the hook--consistent positions are not my concern.
Anti-Microsoft feelings can obscure the real problem--the type of technological abuse.
Microsoft is not the only problem
See updated news items!
WARNING: The good part of the Register article are the quotes from Moglen, who knows his subject. The reporter who wrote the article, however, makes basic mistakes. E.g.,
"But why use a contract upgrade rather than filing a lawsuit to scupper
the deal, which might produce a clearer result in the long term? Moglen
himself couldn't be drawn on specifics, but the view amongst free
(rather than open) strategists suggests that elements of the deal make
litigation undesirable - even if it is legally justified."
However, Licenses are not contracts.
MS/Novell shows only contempt for you. If enough speak out, the bankers notice:
The transaction would negatively impact the companys position in the open source community.
Read the interview Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal.
Alright that's the legal piece. There's also www,boycottnovell.com and the Samba disapproval. Other links and ideas welcome.
Yes, this is a review, but some of you guys may have not thought long enough about the smoke and mirrors and are still are in denial about Novell:
1. The MS/Novell deal really was just Novell paying for both companies to announce protection for Novell customers. The rest was just window dressing.
2. Balmer
You already know about the Balmer thing, but maybe you need to think it over again without deal-fluff: a taste of things to come and you can thank Novell for it.
This alleged exploit and its reactions of paranoia or debunkings are just noise. Sanitize now.
How Do I Eat Your Lunch?
Thanks for the reminder--forgot to mention it.