| |||||||||||
The problem is clarityThe problem is clarityPosted May 23, 2005 7:48 UTC (Mon) by hansl (subscriber, #5086)In reply to: The problem is clarity by paulj Parent article: Sun Seizes Tarantella (IT-Director)
> up to $2499 for RHAS premium edition. That doesn't quite seem
(Log in to post comments)
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 8:11 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] I'm not quite sure, but I think that has been changed.
--paulj
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 9:28 UTC (Mon) by hansl (subscriber, #5086) [Link] > I'm not quite sure, but I think that has been changed. It better have. Because Sun isn't going to benefit from the open source process just by putting (parts of!) it's source code under an open source license and then charge for services and support. And BTW, they made the wrong decision at that IMO, it should have been a reciprocal license like the GPL because that's the type of license that creates more trust than any other open source license. To really enjoy the benefits of open source Sun should open up their development process as well. For all the brilliant Sun engineers cannot do what the community seems to be doing for Linux. A good bug report, a patch that adds a PCI id for some obscure hardware or a one-liner bugfix is just as valuable as the next hyperthreading aware scheduler by some brilliant engineer. Because for the end-user, all of these can equally make a piece of hardware or software start to work. -Hans
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 10:14 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Other than the licence comment, I agree with everything you said, and I believe these things (bug reports, transparent development, etc) are possibly being addressed for the preparation of OpenSolaris, so wait and see until that goes live.
Re the licence, it *is* a reciprocal licence. Code under CDDL has to stay under the CDDL, along with derived works. The major differences with the GPL are that CDDL does not try to extend its reach beyond *files* containing CDDLed code (In this sense it less restrictive than the GPL, and while I'm sure RMS would frown on this, it's a more pragmatic approach which suits OpenSolaris better, see my previous comments on this earlier in this thread. And to para-quote Linus "He who writes the code gets to choose the licence".) and it attempts to deal with patent risk, quite nicely too imho and I hope the GPLv3 will do take a similar tack. I don't see any barrier in the CDDL to creating a healthy community around a body of source-code.
If I thought the CDDL was a terrible licence, I'd just shut up and say nothing. But it's not a bad licence to my reading (ie reading the actual licence - not from reading the inane commentary on /. and elsewhere from people who seem *not* to have read the CDDL at all), and I say that with my FSF member hat on :).
regards,
Paul Jakma.
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 11:02 UTC (Mon) by hansl (subscriber, #5086) [Link] > The major differences with the GPL are that CDDL does not > try to extend its reach beyond *files* containing CDDLed code So people only have to make sure their changes are in separate in files and they don't have show them to me (when distributing the aggregate work). That's not the reciprocal "you get to use my changes, so I get to use your changes" deal that the GPL establishes, which is exactly why it becomes interesting for me to contribute. -Hans
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 11:39 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Well, why not read the CDDL instead of getting a second-hand opinion from some random, non-lawyer, LWN reader like me? (this is precisely my problem with so much of the opinion bandied around on the CDDL - everyone is happy to form it based on hearsay. :) ).
You can't simply make changes and stuff them in a new file. Modifications to CDDL'd code must still be distributed under the CDDL, whether in a new file or not. The definition of modifications is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications;
B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or
C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License.
Such modifications would *still* be required to be licenced under the CDDL.
In that context, reread this sentence fragment of mine:
> The major differences with the GPL are that CDDL does not
Clearer?
Note that the definition of "modification of the contents of a file" *possibly* is very similar to how the GPL relies on the definition of "derived work" for its coverage. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. (I'd be curious as to the answer). The scope of how the CDDL frames it is possibly narrower than that of the GPL, I'm not sure (modifications to contents versus 'derived work') however I suspect in practice the respective scope wouldn't be /too/ far apart.
Reading the CDDL would also be a useful exercise, particularly if one wishes to argue it's demerits :). It's at:
http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
regards,
--paulj
The problem is clarity Posted May 23, 2005 12:53 UTC (Mon) by hansl (subscriber, #5086) [Link] > Well, why not read the CDDL instead of getting a second-hand> opinion from some random, non-lawyer, LWN reader like me? OK, I actually started reading the license but I'm afraid I am not skilled enough to understand how exactly it allows you to not reveal your own changes. But I think I do understand these words from your boss Jonathan Swartz, explaining the CDDL: > Under the CDDL, you are free to choose what to reveal, what to > withhold, and how to price your products. The CDDL encourages > self-determination by giving developers the basic building blocks > of the entire OpenSolaris operating system without any obligation > to disgorge their private property or predetermine its price. You > can withhold from Sun, from the OpenSolaris community, from the > world, anything you build. Or you can choose to share. It's entirely > your call. http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20050417#the_sp... -Hans
|
|||||||||||