| |||||||||||
Debian and Nexenta collideDebian and Nexenta collidePosted Nov 9, 2005 22:26 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)In reply to: Debian and Nexenta collide by paulj Parent article: Debian and Nexenta collide
Richard Stallman called the CDDL "basically ethical":
(Log in to post comments)
Debian and Nexenta collide Posted Nov 10, 2005 0:47 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Actually, he did more than call it "ethical", he said the CDDL "is a free software licence" (with the reservations i mentioned regarding the GPL incompatibilities). RMS is not one to call something "free" lightly.
Regarding patents, yes, they're confined to the CDDL code implementing the patent. Quite obviously the CDDL can not give liberal patent grants if it wishes to be able to specify patent MAD and a patent commons amongst stakeholders (users/developers) in a CDDL project. Note that the patent grants implied by the CDDL *are* available to GPL code, indeed code under any licence. It is the *GPL* which restricts itself, simply because it is quite old now and doesn't deal with the question in any way except to say essentially the patents must be licenced unconditionally to everyone, royalty-free. Note that this is obviously *not* how the GPL licences software copyright (you must follow the restrictions of the GPL), and it's quite probably *not* how the GPLv3 will approach software patents. In other words, watch out: don't today condemn the CDDL for trying to use patents as a lever in the interests of Free Software, as the GPLv2 already does with copyright, and then tomorrow applaud the GPLv3 when it may well try very similar tricks[1].
A really simple way forward would be for the GPLv3 to recognise the validity of the CDDL patent-pooling/MAD clauses and allow GPLv3 applications to avail of any patent grants in CDDL code, by allowing GPLv3 code to link to such CDDL code. There is *nothing* in the CDDL to stop the FSF, or anyone else, doing so (as long you follow the CDDL wrt to the CDDL /files/, and any derivatives thereof).
I work for Sun, so I guess I'm tainted and part of the Sun conspiracy, so don't believe me - believe RMS.
1. This is pure speculation on my part, but it has been reported that tackling software patents is on the agenda for the GPLv3 and I personally think the CDDL patent clauses would be quite suitable for the next revision of the GPL.
Debian and Nexenta collide Posted Nov 10, 2005 1:11 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Did you read the article Stallman wrote? The one called "Sun's no-opannouncement" that referred specifically to the patent grants in question? Unless I'm drunk, or he's totally wrong, then Sun's CDDL patent grants extend to nothing except Sun's own CDDL-released software. >> So what has really happened here? Reading the announcement clearly, I >> think that it doesn't announce anything at all. It simply describes, >> in a different and grandiose way, the previously announced release of >> the Solaris source code as free software under Sun's idiosyncratic >> license, the CDDL. Outside Solaris, few or no free software packages >> use that license--and Sun has not said it won't sue us for >> implementing the same techniques in our own free software. Patent grants implied by the CDDL are *certainly* not available to GPL code. Read OpenSolaris.org's comments: >> The CDDL provides an explicit patent license for code released under >> the license. This means that you can use, modify, and redistribute >> code released under CDDL without worrying about any patents that the >> contributors of the code (including Sun) might have on the contributed >> technology. The license also includes a provision to discourage patent >> litigation against developers, by revoking the rights to the code for >> anyone initiating a patent claim against a developer regarding code >> they have contributed. Found on ZDNet: >> Perhaps the most interesting among the list of commentators is IBM's >> vice president of standards, Bob Sutor, who in his blog entry, >> commended Sun for embracing the spirit of open source, but then added >> "As far as I understand it, Sun is not pledging these patents for use >> in any open source project as [IBM] did." So how can you say: >> Note that the patent grants implied by the CDDL *are* available to GPL >> code, indeed code under any licence. It is the *GPL* which restricts >> itself, simply because it is quite old now and doesn't deal with the >> question in any way except to say essentially the patents must be >> licenced unconditionally to everyone, royalty-free. Please clarify! Better yet, please tell your bosses at Sun to clarify in public!
Debian and Nexenta collide Posted Nov 10, 2005 2:29 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Did you read the article Stallman wrote? The one called "Sun's no-op announcement" that referred specifically to the patent grants in question? Unless I'm drunk, or he's totally wrong, then Sun's CDDL patent grants extend to nothing except Suns' own CDDL-released software. I did, and yes the grants extend only to the CDDL-released software concerned. However, my point was that the CDDL allows any software to make use of it - that includes GPL software. The only thing the GPL software author has to do is grant herself an exception to link her own code to the CDDL code implementing the patent, and hey presto, she's got a patent licence (by using the CDDL code). RMS had a concern that Suns' grant was not royalty-free, non-exclusive (AIUI) and hence does not extend to GPL software. The thing though is that Sun can not have the CDDL setup a Free Software patent pool if it also grants such liberal rights (you could avoid the pooling conditions of the CDDL by simply availing of the RFNE grant then). That the GPLv2 is old, needs updating and doesn't provide for patent-pooling is hardly a drawback of the CDDL ;). Finally, there's a simple solution, the GPLv3 can just avail itself of that pool, by allowing linkage or inclusion of CDDL code (ie, all the GPLv3 really has to do is to just recognise the CDDL as compatible for purposes of GPL - no more). As both an FSF supporter and a Sun bod, I very much hope the GPLv3 will do that.
Debian and Nexenta collide Posted Nov 10, 2005 3:18 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] As of yet I've resisted letting your affiliation with Sun have any impacton my replies. What I will say is that your attitude... >> That the GPLv2 is old, needs updating and doesn't provide for >> patent-pooling is hardly a drawback of the CDDL ;). ...is typical of Sun Microsystems and is the reason why I suspect you won't ever be real open-source competition for Linux. Sun isn't the god that it thinks it is. Your assertion that GPL software could link CDDL software and enjoy its patent is specifically identified in the CDDL as false: >> (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is >> granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or >> (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original >> Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other >> software or devices. I'll take the GPL over the CDDL any day. Thankfully, I suspect that the silent majority agrees with me.
Debian and Nexenta collide Posted Nov 10, 2005 4:41 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
>> That the GPLv2 is old, needs updating and doesn't provide for ...is typical of Sun Microsystems and is the reason why I suspect you won't ever be real open-source competition for Linux. Sun isn't the god that it thinks it is. Odd, the above is a view held by the FSF - nowt to do with Sun. One of the greatest challenges today is what to do about the climate of patent-trolls, particularly in software. The CDDL attempts to do something about it, the GPLv3 almost certainly will attempt to introduce wording to tackle patent-risks too. As an FSF supporter, I certainly hope so anyway. The above was not intended a comment as a Sun employee, more with my Joe Bloggs (FSF supporter) hat on if anything. Sorry if came across as snide. Your assertion that GPL software could link CDDL software and enjoy its patent is specifically identified in the CDDL as false: "(d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices." I don't actually know if my assertion is false or not. I *think* is true, but my assertion carries no weight - hope that's obvious. However, with respect to this 2.1d clause, note the "Notwithstanding", hence clearly 2.1d does not trump 2.1b. 2.1d therefore, by my layman's interpretation, is there to state the obvious: "You can't infringe on Suns' patents in your own code and claim you have a patent licence through 2b simply by linking to, or wedging your infringing code in, with Suns' CDDL code". In the latter case, you'd have to CDDL your code anyway, or breach the copyright. Note that even if you infringe on a patent of Sun, that still does not mean Sun are going to sue you, it is entirely at the patent holders discretion whether to sue or not. There are lots of things that can be done to resolve infringement other than suing people, e.g. you may be contributing to OpenSolaris, it's quite unlikely Sun would then sue you. Sun does not have a record of running around suing people, further if it's quite inconsequential Sun can easily just ignore it, at its discretion. Patent law is not like trademark law, your claims are not affected by ignoring infringement (AIUI). (Any large corporation which does R&D almost certainly already has lots of patents in its portfolio which are being infringed here and there. By and large, corporations don't care as long as they're not sued themselves - only then does the portfolio come out ;). That is the current climate, for better or worse.) I'll take the GPL over the CDDL any day. Thankfully, I suspect that the silent majority agrees with me. You can use what you want. Sun uses the GPL too. Most of my work to date at Sun has been on GPLed software. Ditto for quite a few other Sun engineers. As for the CDDL, its fundamentals are fine - RMS has stated this too. Whether it would have been possible to find the wording to allow the patent grants to follow modified works, I don't know. From a reply of yours in another thread, you obviously think that wording should have been put there. I'd agree in principle, but have doubts about whether it could be done without resulting in a vague and unclear licence. Anyway, it's late, plus I still have to read the weekly edition! Night.
Notwithstanding Posted Nov 10, 2005 6:36 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] "Notwithstanding" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Better look it up.
Notwithstanding Posted Nov 10, 2005 8:22 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Strangely enough, I did look it up to make sure it meant what I've always thought it meant and (AFAICT) it does. Care to expand?
Notwithstanding Posted Nov 10, 2005 16:44 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] It means that 2.1(d) completely overrides (or perhaps "limits") subsection 2.1(b). That means that the patent grants do NOT apply to any modified code, or code that incorporates CDDL code in new ways. That may not be the intent, but that's what it says.
Notwithstanding Posted Nov 10, 2005 23:03 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Interesting, that goes against completely against the sense of "Notwithstanding" that I've understood. The "notwithstanding" refers to some obstacle that may limit or make more difficult the effect/action being referred to. I had thought till now at least.
Notwithstanding Posted Nov 10, 2005 16:50 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] A simpler version: No matter (and despite) what 2.1b says, 2.1d applies.
|
|||||||||||