Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Sun criticizes popular open-source license (News.com)
News.com reports on Sun President Jonathan Schwartz's talk at the Open Source Business Conference. "The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users 'a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world,' the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said. 'If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their own) code.'"
(Log in to post comments)
Attacking the GPL worked so well for SCO... Posted Apr 6, 2005 13:32 UTC (Wed) by bhurt (guest, #3281) [Link] Sigh. I haven't been wanting to do this- but I think I'm declaring Sun dead. Solaris is still a good OS (better in many ways than Linux), and the Sparc is still a good chip- but the rot has started in upper management.
Hint: there is a cost to using GPL code, just like there's a cost to using Windows code. How you pay for the code is different, that's all. Don't like the terms of the deal? Don't use the code.
Attacking the GPL worked so well for SCO... Posted Apr 6, 2005 21:00 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] The next generation of UltraSPARC was cancelled and the European Space Agency uses a GPLed clone of the Sparc in preference to Sun's. Solaris is good, yes, but the ix86 port is sloooow, suggesting portability issues, which in turn suggests a low-level design problem. Physical Java machines (such as a CPU that can run Java natively) exist but aren't catching on. None of these are really proof Sun is dead, but when taken together and with Sun's recent vitriol against Linux and the GPL, it is hard to conclude otherwise. The dynamics don't feel right, they look way too lopsided and far too much like a company that is trying to stay ahead by shooting the competition, rather than moving forwards.I think Sun has all the ingredients needed to be - and stay - successful. The ingredients they leave on the shelf aren't the ones that matter, though.
Attacking the GPL worked so well for SCO... Posted Apr 6, 2005 23:30 UTC (Wed) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] Imagine placing a whole bunch of engineering effort into both a hardware platform and an operating system to run on it, and like most UNIX shops, be in the 64-bit world last millennium. You've migrated your operating system off the old 32-bit processors, and then after several years a customer wants this operating system back on a 32-bit processor, from a completely different architecture.
If you've ever done any assembly programming on Intel and SPARC you'd know that they are completely different. It's not just instruction set labels, its the whole mindset of how the platform works.
I think expecting UltraSPARC performance on x86 in a matter of months or even years is expecting too much. I'm glad to see Sun has gone down the AMD route, choosing a decent x86 platform that itself has been 64-bit for many years (even if ironically it shares some engineering concepts with their old competitor DEC). That should make their migration easier should we really be seeing the death of the SPARC :~(
Don't feed the troll. Posted Apr 6, 2005 14:10 UTC (Wed) by szoth (guest, #14825) [Link] ;)
But seriously, everything this man says makes sense if you realize his goal is to divide the free software community; you don't have to read to many mailing list posts before you notice the BSD vs. GPL friction in the community.
". . . a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world,"
new spin on the "viral license" smear. Of course we know who in the room is a preditor Mr. Schwartz.
"Economies and nations need intellectual property to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."
like a fish needs a bicycle.
"[they] found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world"
That's how free software works Mr. Schwartz, whether it's required by the license or not. But it gets better: those institutions outside of the US don't have to "incorporate GPL software into their products" in the first place, they have that freedom too. And where does the "economic imperialism" come in exactly? The only way money gives you more influence in the free software world is by allowing you to contribute more. Oh, and I guess you can use your money on idiotic PR stunts like Mr. Scwartz, but then you have to pay in lost respect as well.
An aside. Posted Apr 6, 2005 20:43 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] A number of things can happen when you try to lift yourself up by a pair of bootstraps:
The relationship to the above, Sun and current Intellectual Property mechanisms is best left to the imagination.
Beware the OpenSolaris trap Posted Apr 6, 2005 15:55 UTC (Wed) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] Attacking the GPL is an early stage of Sun's last hail-Mary play to derail linux (not open source in general, linux in particular). Having exhausted their technical options to derail commodity computing and bring back "boutique" system vendors, Sun has moved on to the legal option.
Seeing SCO's failed attempt to divine stolen source through opaque interfaces (trying to see stolen source from one apparently closed source-base to an open one), Sun is taking a new and dangerous tack - claim stolen source and back it up with transparent interfaces. It will be much easier to claim stolen code when both the source and destination codebases are open to public scrutiny.
To wit I expect the first "stolen code" lawsuits levied against the OSDL within six months to a year of the OpenSolaris code finally being released (whenever that happens). It will be practically impossible for linux developers to claim they are working in a "clean-room", ignorant of the OpenSolaris code because Sun will claim it is now widely available under a generous model for inspection. The targets will be the linux kernel, the OSDL, and the GPL.
I would like to know what measures people are taking to make sure that the linux kernel is in fact isolated from OpenSolaris code. Its a conundrum - even if someone is appointed to verify no stolen code, that person by rights must know the OpenSolaris code, and is therefore tainted also.
By the way I do not expect the inverse to occur because I don't realistically see any significant community involvement happening in OpenSolaris...Sun's history in this regard (JCP) seems to be "read only access".
Beware the OpenSolaris trap Posted Apr 6, 2005 22:19 UTC (Wed) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] But what would prevent the reverse claim from holding?
You put our code in your code base!
Did not! That was our code originally, you put our code in your code base and then claimed it was your code in ours.
Did not!
Did too!
Listen, all your base R belong to us! Get over it.
No you!
(Sorry, couldn't resist that last bit.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew...
What a surprise! Posted Apr 6, 2005 19:07 UTC (Wed) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] But Schwartz said that some people he's spoken to dislike it because it precludes them from using open-source software as a foundation for proprietary projects. Sounds like it's doing exactly what it was designed for.
Sun criticizes popular open-source license (News.com) Posted Apr 6, 2005 21:12 UTC (Wed) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] Schwartz said. 'If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their own) code.' This statement is entirely correct. If you use the GPL, there is no obligation on economies, universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in their own code. Indeed, about the only thing prohibited is the imposing of an obligation on someone else. Sun's license for Java places all kinds of obligations on those who accept it. So, yes, I fully agree that that is indeed the difference.
Sun criticizes popular open-source license (News.com) Posted Apr 6, 2005 22:39 UTC (Wed) by sidboyce (guest, #10891) [Link] MacNealy & Schwartz have been in the "Sun" too long or they are desparate men, those are the only reasonable explanations I can offer for their loss of grip on reality. No one is forcing them to use even the large amount of GPL software accompanying Solaris 10, then Sun is a member of the Gnome Foundation and Gnome is most definitely GGG...PPP...LLL. Like Stan & Ollie, one day there'll be the famous line uttered "A fine mess you've got me into again Ollie". To critics of the GPL I say, if you don't like the feed, don't put your snout in in the trough.
The Bigger Picture Posted Apr 7, 2005 1:59 UTC (Thu) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link] no GPL for Solaris? Thats news these days ? I already said so long time ago. Here's my response to news.com when Torvalds was interviewed in december 2004 when Solaris 10 was just announced :
The bigger picture
Posted by: Robert m. Stockmann
Posted on: December 21, 2004, 5:27 PM PST
Story: Torvalds: a Solaris skeptic
Hello David,
I think one should see the whole story in a
bigger picture. What Sun Microsystems Inc. has
done is just outrageous and unbelievable. Not
only are they planning to nuke its own ace
technology, the SUN Ultra Sparc processor, but
they have made some very sly moves towards
Microsoft which amongst other things concern the
business and legal properties of StarOffice.
StarOffice is used by many Linux users today
under the name OpenOffice.org. Not only are
these legal documents concerning
StarOffice/OpenOffice rather distressing for the
current users of OpenOffice.org but seem to be a
payoff fee and garantee for SUN Microsystems not
to be sued by Microsoft for this Office software
technology in the future.
If one observes what has happened and is
happening right now at the 'new' HP.com , you
see that also the Alpha 64bit technology there
is being killed of, including it 64 UNIX version
Tru64. After the Microsoft "deal" SUN
Microsystems seems to have found enough
confidence to start banking completely on the
AMD64/Solaris Gig.
What I conclude from this, is that Intel seems
to be a garanteed winner on any possible outcome
scenario of this all.
The hardware goal : One Company, One Brand , One
processor Type : x86-whatever seems to be
finally achieved. The software goal : One
Company, One Brand, One Operating System is
still out in the cold though. We today can thank
Linux for preventing this to happen. Sun now
plays the Solaris x86-any card, which still is a
unresolved event for me. I tried Solaris 7 and 8
on Intel , a dual Xeon box, and it seemed to
work ok. I never allowed it to stay on my disk,
because i could not do the things with it i
needed.. Linux as a UNIX alike Workstation has
always been better.
GPL Licensing... I must disagree with you. If
you see the grand picture, Microsoft wants its
monopoly at least on the Desktop/Workstation
market. An OpenSourced GPL-ed Solaris would
simply not fit in that picture. We'll see what
happens
This was in December 2004....I guess one can see dudes like
Schwartz coming from miles away.
Robert
I cannot believe Schwartz spoke such utter nonsense Posted Apr 7, 2005 11:02 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users 'a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world,' the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said.Say what??? GPL just says that if you make derivative works based on the code, you must publish your changed code if you distribute it. And to the world in general, not only the USA. One can more convincingly argue that the GPL does exactly the opposite of what Schwartz claims. Since much (possibly still most?) GPL'd code originated in the USA, but is available to everyone everywhere, it really causes a huge technology transfer out of the USA...
I cannot believe Schwartz spoke such utter nonsense Posted Apr 7, 2005 12:03 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] Actually, it says even less. You only have to provide code to those you give the binaries to. You just can't prevent them from passing it on. And if you make changes within your own company, nothing obligates you to publish it...
As for technology transfer, blah, who cares? The point is to make as many people as productive as possible. There are far more consumers of software than producers and free dissemination favours productive consumers.
Delivering IP to the USA Posted Apr 8, 2005 0:57 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I had that same puzzlement, so I read the referenced article, and if you read between the lines, you can see what his point is. He's saying that developing countries, in order to develop and compete with developed countries, in particular the USA, need to have exclusive access to IP. If they have to make their IP available to the world, then it's available to the USA, and they can't beat the USA.The only reason he singles out the USA is that it is the country to beat. He's describing a situation like the human genome project, where a free-information group and a proprietary-information group were supposedly competing to decode the genome. It wasn't much of a competition, since the latter had all of the former's results, but not vice versa.
Sun criticizes popular open-source --- Brains Posted Apr 8, 2005 3:45 UTC (Fri) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link] SUN used to, but most have left:
Bill Joy
Looking at SUN today the parallels with the decline of DEC
|
|||||||||||||