| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Open is Open.Open is Open.Posted Nov 10, 2005 19:57 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: Open is Open. by paulj Parent article: Debian and Nexenta collide
> But, as mentioned in another post, there were reasons not to. E.g. the GPL does not allow linkage to/from closed code, an issue for drivers.
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. People provide exceptions for this kind of thing all the time. Linux kernel already does. Many userland apps also do. Given that Sun is the copyright holder here, Sun could have done the same.
Now, when it comes to the remaining issue of patents, I IBM don't seem to have any problems with contributing to a GPL-ed piece of software (Linux kernel), although they have a truckload of patents (something like 10 times more than Sun). So, Sun could have enforced their patents selectively, if they so wanted. Remember, to have a patent means to have the right to "exclude people from making, selling, [...]". If you let someone use your patents, that doesn't mean you cannot enforce them against people that cause you trouble.
My bet: CDDL was chosen precisely _because_ it was _incompatible_ with the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Open is Open. Posted Nov 10, 2005 22:47 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] People provide exceptions for this kind of thing all the time. Grand, but be clear: then we're no longer talking about a GPL licence.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 10, 2005 23:30 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Grand, but be clear: then we're no longer talking about a GPL licence.
Of course we are. For instance, here is a part of the text from such an exception (see: http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi for an example use, as written by FSF):
-----------------------------------------
So, the recipient of the software can relicense the software under the pure GPL if he/she so wishes. But the point remains - this software can be included, without any problems, in _any_ software licenced under the _pure_ GPL. In effect, it is licensed under the GPL.
PS. This text is from the copyright statement of my own software, so I didn't just pull it out of thin air.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 11, 2005 9:22 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Of course we are. No.. You're talking about GPL + exceptions. Not at all disputing the validity of exceptions (I think I mentioned in another post the ability for GPL authors to give themselves exceptions so they could link to CDDL code). However it is still not quite the GPL, it's "GPL + X". It's disingenuous to reply to me and claim that Sun could have chosen the GPL, when really you mean "GPL + X". Further, the "+ X" part would be the "specify patent pool and MAD on litigation", which would apply additional restrictions on patent rights not specified in the GPL. Hence that would make this "GPL + X" licence incompatible with the GPL. So your suggestion essentially is no different to Sun having used the CDDL.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 12, 2005 3:50 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > So your suggestion essentially is no different to Sun having used the CDDL.
On the contrary. My suggestion is _qualitatively_ different to what Sun have done. It is _illegal_ to include CDDL licensed code with the GPL licensed software. It is perfectly legal to do so with the code licensed under the GPL + Exception. And that is because GPL + Exception _is_ essentially GPL, for people that choose not to pass on the exceptions. Nothing like that is possible with the CDDL.
As for patents, I addressed that before to a degree, but I'll elaborate. Bottom line is this: Sun are unwilling to guarantee (in any legal sense, like IBM) that they won't sue open source developers over patents Sun holds. In other words, I can get in trouble for using patents from OpenSolaris in my open source software. I cannot get in trouble for using IBM's patents they promised not to sue over. So, I think this behaviour on behalf of Sun is more disingenuous that anything I wrote here, particularly coming from the company that supposedly not only understands but also "invented" open source (luckily, they didn't patent that invention :-).
We can all pretend here, but it is quite clear that CDDL was designed and chosen _precisely_ because it isn't compatible with the GPL, in order to prevent Solaris technology from going to Linux (which is likely, given the size of Linux v. OpenSolaris development communities). Ditto the patent promises, which only apply to CDDL licensed software. I just wish Sun were open about it and told us so in the first place.
I did watch the launch of Galaxy servers where Red Hat (and by extension Linux) supposedly became Sun's friend again. I just wonder why that was? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that most Sun AMD based servers run an operating system other than Solaris? Or was it a sign or "real" friendship? Hmm, I'm inclined to go with the former, but that's just my cynical self ;-)
Open is Open. Posted Nov 12, 2005 15:41 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] On the contrary. My suggestion is _qualitatively_ different to what Sun have done. It is _illegal_ to include CDDL licensed code with the GPL licensed software. It is perfectly legal to do so with the code licensed under the GPL + Exception. And that is because GPL + Exception _is_ essentially GPL, for people that choose not to pass on the exceptions. Nothing like that is possible with the CDDL This is about the patent-pool, patent MAD clauses of the CDDL. The problem is that if you add those to the GPL, as you suggest, then they are not exceptions but additional restrictions. Additional restrictions would make this theoretical "Sun GPL" incompatible with the GPL anyway. Authors of GPL software *can* make use of CDDL patent grants, just by giving themselves to link to the CDDL software to which the grant applies. Bottom line is this: Sun are unwilling to guarantee (in any legal sense, like IBM) that they won't sue open source developers over patents Sun holds. Ha, ha. Go and look at the patents IBM donated to the Linux *kernel* (not to opensource in general btw). I'm sure the linux kernel is far safer now that IBM won't sue it for things like patents on gel-packs, and such. Sun executives BTW are on record that Suns' interest in patents is primarily defensive. And the patents Sun has given Free Software (which is what code under the CDDL is, according to *RMS*) are those relevant to the code at hand. Unlike IBMs publicity stunt.
We can all pretend here, but it is quite clear that CDDL was designed and chosen _precisely_ because it isn't compatible with the GPL, in order to prevent Solaris technology from going to Linux (which is likely, given the size of Linux v. OpenSolaris development communities). Your powers of mind-reading are obviously far greater than mine. I don't see how that is clear at all. I see it as a possibility, a very unlikely possibility given various other factors, as I've already explained. Eg. that the CDDL simply has restrictions in it which can never be GPLv2 compatible (but maybe could be GPLv3 compatible). Or e.g. that OpenSolaris and Linux kernel code simply is *way* too different for code to transfer across anyway. As for OpenSolaris apps, you can port those across no problem, CDDL licence has no problem with that. If you want to implement DTrace on some other kernel, you're free to use the OpenSolaris Dtrace userland tools. (Someone is working on this for FreeBSD btw). Are there reasonable things which you could criticise Sun for? Sure. Are there omissions or deficiencies in the CDDL, some claim there are (see other threads). I'm pretty sure Sun and the OpenSolaris community would like to hear them (join the lists), they might even be fixable if valid. But if your arguments start to reduce down to mind-reading, I'll have to bow out I'm afraid.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 13, 2005 3:03 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > if you add those to the GPL, as you suggest
I never suggested _that_. I said that Sun could have licensed with GPL + Exception for _linking_ with other software. I addressed patents before (twice) and I won't do it again.
> donated to the Linux *kernel* (not to opensource in general btw)
Please get your facts straight. IBM _explicitly_ promised not to sue _any_ open source project over about 500 patents they have (applies to all OSI approved licences). Not just the kernel.
> Sun executives BTW are on record that Suns' interest in patents is primarily defensive.
Which is legally meaningless.
> Unlike IBMs publicity stunt.
See above.
> Your powers of mind-reading are obviously far greater than mine.
I studied under Yoda himself ;-)
Open is Open. Posted Nov 13, 2005 6:42 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] I never suggested _that_. I said that Sun could have licensed with GPL + Exception for _linking_ with other software. Ok, fair enough. However, all my arguments here before about why the GPL would not have sufficed have revolved mostly around the patent pool+MAD clauses of the CDDL, linkage was just another example. Yes, the linkage thing possibly could be dealt with via exceptions. My point regarding the patent clauses stands though. Please get your facts straight. IBM _explicitly_ promised not to sue _any_ open source project over about 500 patents they have (applies to all OSI approved licences). Not just the kernel. Ah, fair enough. I must have been confused. However, go and *look* at the list of patents. Quite a few have absolutely no relevance to software (CPU, token ring, ATM, etc. hardware patents), others do not have much value (though, that's probably more a comment on the state of the patent system) and at least two of the patents don't have anything to do with computers (tamper proof screws, DNA reading assembly). A unilateral patent grant still does not do anything to try setup a patent pool and patent "peace" around a software project, as the CDDL does. As I said in another post, be careful what you criticise the CDDL for, when there's a fair chance the GPLv3 will try do similar tomorrow (Eben Moglen has stated patent threats are something the GPLv3 may try address). The CDDL's clauses are intended to encourage the build-up of a pool of grants to a project on all relevent patents held by the initial and contributing developers. That's a worthwhile goal IMHO. Which is legally meaningless. IBM have *many* more patents than those 500. They can almost certainly dig up patents from their portfolio to sue almost anyone they wanted to, regardless of those 500. So their grant is not *that* meaningful either. So lets be honest: The primary reasons big corporates involved fruitfully in Free Software, like IBM and Sun, neither have nor likely will (in the short to mid-term at least) sue any Free Software developers or projects is because they have absolutely nothing to gain from it and a *lot* to lose. Anyway, did Sun want to do something different than the GPL? Yes, I've listed some *good* reasons why. Disagreeing with the logic of those reasons is fine. However clinging to the view that Sun chose the CDDL out of sheer perverseness (reasoning I can never really refute, since it hinges implicitely on Sun having hidden motives), when it isn't that hard to come up with more rational reasons is perverse in itself, if not sheer paranoia. Particularly when the objectionable result of this "hidden motive" theory, incompatibility with the GPL, lies *not* in the CDDL but in the GPL and can easily be fixed in the next revision of the GPL, which is due in the next year or two. Further, any GPLv2 copyright holder can *today* avail of CDDL code by simply giving their own GPL code an exception. If you have suggestions on improving the CDDL, you are welcome to discuss them on the opensolaris-discuss list, the CDDL *can* be up-revved too. I studied under Yoda himself ;-) :^)
Open is Open. Posted Nov 13, 2005 8:31 UTC (Sun) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] >> A unilateral patent grant still does not do anything to try setup a>> patent pool and patent "peace" around a software project, as the CDDL >> does. Patent "peace"? The points I pointed out earlier leave me feeling as if there is much less patent "peace" from Sun than IBM, especially given that not only did IBM open their patents in a non-discriminatory fashion, but are participating in other patent projects to defend Linux. >> As I said in another post, be careful what you criticise the CDDL for, >> when there's a fair chance the GPLv3 will try do similar tomorrow >> (Eben Moglen has stated patent threats are something the GPLv3 may try >> address). Anything at this point is pure speculation. There are a million ways to address the patent issue. But what I will say is that given Stallman's philosophy, if patent protection is somehow offered by GPLv3, it will be unilaterally offered to all products derived from the original, something that the CDDL *does not* do. >> They can almost certainly dig up patents from their portfolio to sue >> almost anyone they wanted to, regardless of those 500. So their grant >> is not *that* meaningful either. So lets be honest: The primary >> reasons big corporates involved fruitfully in Free Software, like IBM >> and Sun, neither have nor likely will (in the short to mid-term at >> least) sue any Free Software developers or projects is because they >> have absolutely nothing to gain from it and a *lot* to lose. I think IBM's grant, combined with their actions (such as participation in the creation of the Open Inventions Alliance): http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5943781.html Means that they are demonstrating much more *tangible* friendship and support of open source. Sun's licensing of their patents to OpenSolaris, and perhaps the original version only, imply that Sun doesn't care one lick beyond their own projects. They could freely license their patents to any OSI-approved license as IBM has done, and their patents would *still* be capable of instigating MAD against any party that threatens them. >> Particularly when the objectionable result of this "hidden motive" >> theory, incompatibility with the GPL, lies *not* in the CDDL but in >> the GPL and can easily be fixed in the next revision of the GPL, which >> is due in the next year or two. I don't think any motives are hidden. I don't think Sun is about to go after open source developers with their patents, be it Linux or OpenSolaris - but it's clear to me that they didn't care to *yield* their (legal) right to do so. They're not diving into this open source thing - they're sticking a toe in and checking to see how the water feels, and they'll probably be shivering all the way until the market finally shoves them in. Your assertion that the problem is with the GPL troubles me as well. The GPL was intentionally designed to require that derived works be GPL as well because that is simply the best way to ensure that no one can tamper with the freedom of the system. No one can confuse the issue by introducing new licenses. Given the GPL's massive adoption rate, and the feelings of much of the community about the CDDL (including FSF's suggestion to not use it), I think people understand this. >> If you have suggestions on improving the CDDL, you are welcome to >> discuss them on the opensolaris-discuss list, the CDDL *can* be >> up-revved too. It may be considered armchair punditry, but we simply don't have to. We already have the GPL, LGPL, BSD license, etc, all of which suit our needs well. The CDDL was written by a business with business concepts and needs in mind. The GPL was written by a philosopher with the good of the people in mind. If Sun wants to volunteer to become a better player in the open source field, they're free to do so, but we should *not* have to drag them into it kicking and screaming. IBM along with a slew of other huge companies walked right into the party. Taking this a bit further (and please don't consider this to be a troll, because it's not intended to be), but myself and I assume a lot of other GNU/Linux users with servers, desktops, laptops, phones, TiVOs, etc loaded full of GPL software, don't feel like we *need* Sun. Sun will join the game if and when they choose. Speaking personally, if Sun closed up shop tomorrow and started making microwaves and toaster ovens, I wouldn't even blink. Sun might be liked by more if they didn't seem to carry such an ego, implying in the undertones of their behavior that they are a necessity to the computing community.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 13, 2005 19:26 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > if not sheer paranoia
I actually agree with you here (and I'm not saying this to be sarcastic). I don't trust Sun after all the flip-flopping they've gone through in regards to open source and Linux. And it's all right there in Jonathan's blog (if he doesn't speak for the company, I don't know who does). All this change of heart makes me nervous. Others, particularly IBM (note: I don't work for IBM, don't own shares of it, never purchased a computer from them and where I work the whole organisation has zero IBM equipment) have been more straightforward, while still quite openly supporting other (proprietary) things and generally hedging their bets, but without "change of heart" every second day.
I would say that possibly the biggest trust busting factor of all is Java for me. If there ever was a vibrant open source effort, it is around Java (e.g. project Jakarta). Some of the best Java stuff out there is open source. And yet, I cannot find any _valid_ reason for Java to be closed source. I know Sun exectives quoted compatibility, but that is just so easy to achieve through tradmarks, that is completely unbelievable. Unfortunately there is no scientific way (yet) to measure what would happen to the platform if it were open sourced, but I think that mere fact that it would get included as a standard part of evey Linux distribution speaks for itself, not to mention all the JDK bugs that have been outstanding for months (in cases years) being fixed quickly. Why Sun doesn't want that to happen, I don't understand.
Open is Open. Posted Nov 18, 2005 3:37 UTC (Fri) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] As long as Sun makes money on licensing their proprietary Java implementation, and the whole technology collage around it, there is no business reason for them to release their implementation's source code under an open source license. It's a proprietary software vendor, it's not a charity. Pending huge management changes (and there would be quite a few changes necessary in the Java division afaict, including booting Graham Hamilton), it's not going to happen.
cheers,
Open is Open. Posted Nov 13, 2005 6:23 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > patents on gel-packs,
Just one more comment here, if I may. You seem to be reading too much of Jonathan's blog and therefore mocking all of those patents. The patents IBM pledged to OSS are here:
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf
To the majority of open source developers, if only one of those patents is something an OSS developer would ever use, IBM's pledge is just about infinitely better than whatever Sun promised in relation to OpenSolaris. That's because Sun's promise relates to (mosly likely unmodified) OpenSolaris code only.
|
|
||||||||||||