Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch)
Linux-Watch reports that
Sun is going to add the GNU General Public License version 3 to OpenSolaris
in addition to its current CDDL. "This will enable programmers to
share code among OpenSolaris and other GPLv3 open-source software
projects. While it still looks very doubtful that Linux will go GPLv3, we
can be certain that the Free Software Foundation Gnu Project's 5,000 plus
programs will be available under the GPLv3. In addition, the Samba Team has
announced that it will be making its popular Samba CIFS (Common Internet
File System) software GPLv3."
(Log in to post comments)
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 16, 2007 20:35 UTC (Tue) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] um - wow.
really - wow!
so basically all good stuff i've been hearing about OpenSolaris (like dtrace et al) could cross-pollinate to another GPLv3 os. i reckon Linus & co should dual license Linux GPLv2/GPLv3 and let the two versions duke it out! may the the fittest survive :)
i think this chart is most revealing[1]
maybe OpenSolaris is the dark horse in the race for desktop dominance?[2] (as posted by dwheeler earlier)
would love to here what people have to think about both those links :)
much respect,
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=SUNW&l=on&...
Good tech Posted Jan 16, 2007 23:09 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] About the first link: I don't think that stock prices reflect any technical competence. Also, Sun vs Red Hat doesn't tell the whole story: Red Hat sells mostly support, Sun sells mostly hardware. If OpenSolaris goes GPLv3, and people like it, Red Hat might sell a system based on its kernel as an option.About the second: OpenSolaris might be the dark horse, but "World Domination 201" centers mostly on multimedia codecs, and therefore on the US. OpenSolaris will not change that; a patent reform might. Here in Europe we don't have that problem yet. If the Commission is serious about it, we may still see interesting things.
Good tech Posted Jan 17, 2007 10:44 UTC (Wed) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Hi man_ls,
Hmm, Red Hat selling OpenSolaris, interesting - they'd have to throw a ton of developer/tech support time at it - actually, a merged Sun/RedHat would be a _very_ interesting company.
I'm also in the EU { sunny costa del sol, not that you care :) } - I detest the US-centric view of software (and much else). NB: according to some metrics the EU is now the worlds biggest economy, china will be the biggest in less than 20 years at current growth rates - not per capita mind but in sheer collective size - It just might be reasonable to think that in the near future it will not be a US company that dominates the entire OS space. Having said that a cartel *cough* consortium of content providers is a nasty threat - they don't just hate free software, they hate free culture, heck I think you could go as far to say that they are ultra-control freaks in a way Mr. Gates has only dreamed of being. If software patents get passed in the EU It'll be a sad sad day...
Viva la revolución!
Anto
Good tech Posted Jan 17, 2007 19:54 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Hi gravious! I'm located (globally speaking) quite near to you, in Madrid.You are right, a Red Hat / Sun merger would be an interesting thing to see. Excellent support + excellent hardware.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 16, 2007 23:11 UTC (Tue) by paulpach (guest, #20903) [Link] linus & co can not take solaris code (under GPLv3/CDDL) and put it inlinux because they can not take code under a license that is not compatible with GPLv2.
Even if they relicensed to GPLv2/GPLv3, they still would not be able to do
basically, if they dual licensed, they are in a much worse position
not quite correct Posted Jan 17, 2007 2:32 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Let's say A is dual-licensed, B is GPL2-only, and C is GPL3-only. You can link and distribute A, AB, or AC, but not ABC.So a dual-licensed Linux could only ship linked with GPL3 code if there were no GPL2-only bits remaining.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 17, 2007 10:43 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] This is a recurring theme, and simply wrong. Linus put Linux under "GPLv2 only" in 2.4.0-test-something, without asking anyone. The only way this can be legitimate is that Linus redistributes what he got (under whatever GPLv2 compatible license that was) under GPLv2 only, and that he can change his mind when he likes to; unless he has taken GPLv2-only code, as well. He can't change the legal status of files created by others, and the default unmarked file under GPLv2 regime is "or later (at your option)". And AFAIK, only 2 files in the current Linux kernel have an explicit GPLv2-only marking, so that would be quite easy to replace those files. Linus can only choose under which terms he's obligated to distribute Linux, and he has chosen GPLv2 now. His choice, his choice to change his mind. From an intentional point of view, it's actually much more confusing. The reason why Linus put this "GPLv2 only" in was that he feels that he can't put something under a future license. He doesn't trust the FSF, and he doesn't fully understand why the FSF has chosen the four freedoms to protect, as opposed to a tit-for-tat model, which Linus seems to see in the GPLv2 (which, however, isn't there). The tit-for-tat model is "I give you my code, you improve it, you give it back to me". That's not what the GPL is about, that's just a misunderstanding. The distrust with the FSF seems to be partly rooted in this fundamental misunderstanding.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 17, 2007 11:40 UTC (Wed) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] That's simply not true.
What people - including you - fail to realise is the "later version" language is not part of the license proper; it's only in there in an example of how to apply the license to your program. Since Linus never used that language, the Linux kernel always was under exactly one license, and one license ONLY - namely the one described in the LICENSE file, the GPLv2.
The change you refer to was just done to make it *clearer* that the "or later" is not and never was part of the kernel's license, so that people - like you - wouldn't be confused. Apparently, it didn't work out all that well, though...
(On a side note: of course individual parts of the kernel may be licensed under the GPLv2 or later versions; that's up to the individual authors, and since everyone keeps their copyright, authors are free to license their own code under other licenses in addition to the GPLv2. But the kernel as a whole is licensed under the GPLv2 only, and code that was contributed under the kernel's default license is GPLv2 only, too, until the author also licenses it under additional licenses.)
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 17, 2007 19:54 UTC (Wed) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link] This is correct. Linux version 1.0 included the file "COPYING" which begins:
Within section 9. it says:
That is the only place the phrase "any later version" shows up in the COPYING file in linux-1.0. Permission was not granted to choose any later version. The last sentence of the above quoted portion of section 9. likewise does not apply, because a version number was specified. Linux has been GPLv2-only, at least since Linux 1.0. (I didn't check every version; it seems reasonable to assume that if "any later version" appeared with some version between 1.0 and now, it was merely by error). (The licenses for versions prior to Linux 1.0 are contained in the RELNOTES-* files or other files outside the source tarball for each version).
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 18, 2007 16:47 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "And AFAIK, only 2 files in the current Linux kernel have an explicit GPLv2-only marking"
You can divide the kernel files into three groups:
- Some that explicitly say "version 2 or...any later version". Those files can be reused under either v2 or v3 terms by anyone who wants to pull them out of the kernel [in principle, see below].
- Some that explicitly say "version 2" without the "or later" clause. Those files can be pulled out and used independently only under GPLv2.
- Many files don't say anything at all about licensing. Those files are covered only by the terms in the top-level COPYING file (unless they are in a sub-area that has its own COPYING or LICENSE file). The component-specific COPYING or LICENSE files mostly just include a copy of GPLv2; none of the ones I looked at in a brief scan allowed "or later". The only exception I saw was drivers/net/LICENSE.SRC, which specifies no GPL with no specific version, meaning files covered by that grant can be used under any GPL version ever released. I'm sure there are other exceptions that I didn't examine.
*Caveats*
I should note (IANAL) that the above is slightly simplistic. In fact, there are interdependcies between files that almost certainly make some of them derived works of others, possibly across license-version boundaries. I have no clue how that would play out if anyone every tried to take the version difference to court.
I also think there's also some legal ambiguity in how the licensing works when you take a "v2 or later file", modify it, and then release it as part of a derived work that is licensed as v2-only (the situation with many of the "or later" files in Linux). While the original code in those files was clearly "v2 or later", you could argue that the changes in the files are licensed only as v2, regardless of the file containing words that say they are licensed under "v2 or later". This argument would be strengthened by the fact that the changes are taken as patches that rarely say anything specific about licensing, which would suggest they were under Linux's top-level license regardless of the original license associated with a particular file. [Again, IANAL; I did ask a question along these lines in the GPLv3 comments process...]
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 16, 2007 20:54 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] I have yet to read the article, but my initial reaction based on the LWN header here is that
Just based on the above paragraph, this seems as if the author(s) is/are trying to put an anti-Linux bias by slam-dunking the above points in the synopsis. This is my knee-jerk perception only; I do welcome others' thoughts, ideas, comments, etc. Now, I'm off to actually read the article...
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 16, 2007 21:19 UTC (Tue) by dougm (subscriber, #4615) [Link] Luckily Linus and the other contributors to the kernel have made it clear that making system callsfrom userspace does not create a derived work of the kernel. Thus there should be nothing (that I know of) preventing a GPL2 Linux kernel running under GPL3 libc/samba/etc.
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 16, 2007 22:17 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] True, but the OpenSolaris kernel source, being GPL3, may not be usable in Linux.
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 16, 2007 22:41 UTC (Tue) by dougm (subscriber, #4615) [Link] Quite right, this could limit cross-fertilization between the kernels. On the other hand, I don't thinkthere's anything to prevent the Linux developers from taking design ideas from Solaris (and vice versa) and re-implementing them in their own context (which would probably have to be done anyway since the kernels have a lot of differences).
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 17, 2007 15:49 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] True, but the OpenSolaris kernel source, being GPL3, may not be usable in Linux. Yup. And it's THE reason for Sun to use GPLv3 and not GPLv2... Think about it...
Now that I've read the article... Posted Jan 16, 2007 21:25 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Perhaps my assessment that Vaughan-Nichols' article is anti-Linux FUD was a little too harsh. At least he recognizes how Sun's CDDL is problematic and their decision to go GPL (be it v2 or v3) is beneficial for everyone. It'll be interesting to see how v2 and v3 co-exist once v3 is official.
Now that I've read the article... Posted Jan 18, 2007 1:41 UTC (Thu) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link] I think it'll be a relatively trivial matter once the license hits(anti-MS/Novell loophole closures notwithstanding, and Novell might just indemnify their way out of those). Linux seems to be the main holdout (and the only one I've heard of besides BusyBox) and really doesn't share code with userspace apps (which will probably switch to avoid a GPLv3 fork with code unusable to the upstream). There's already a ludicrous number of free software licenses in the average Linux distribution, and GPLv3 will be just one more.
SAMBA Posted Jan 16, 2007 21:41 UTC (Tue) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link] Samba has been participating actively in the GPL v3 process since day 1, and made it clear (also pretty much since day 1) that they will go v3, since they feel that the patent protections are critical to their long-term legal viability. Please be a little less trigger-happy on FUD accusations in the future.
SAMBA Posted Jan 17, 2007 11:42 UTC (Wed) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] Read the grandparent's comment again: the Samba project was not accused of any kind of FUD; only the article's author was. (Whether *that* is justified is a question I can't comment on, of course, but nothing was said about Samba.)
Sounds like FUD Posted Jan 16, 2007 23:43 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Sun has been hinting that they were seriously looking at GPLv3 for Solarisfor some time. The strongest hints were immediately after they announced GPLv2ed Java, when they were asked about GPLv3. They said they had been working closely with the FSF on GPLv3 since early on, and did in fact intend to use it for other community projects in the future.
It's also a /very/ good move for Sun, given that Linux is pretty much
Linux /could/ go GPLv3, simply putting a v2/v3 license on new code and
So that's their strategic angle -- they have the opportunity to /maybe/
As for Java, due to the existing community GPLv2 (with exception) efforts
Meanwhile, the Samba folks announced they'd be going GPLv3 in the wake of
Of course, it's a given that all the GPLv2 licensed GNU projects will be
In fact, based on all the above hints and analysis, I've been predicting
I've also been predicting that if RMS proves prescient on the DRM stuff
For many years, people looked at computing history and saw the rise and
Now we have an answer. It could be that Linux is even now in its heyday
It's a gamble, but Sun is positioning Solaris to take the mantle should
OTOH, perhaps Linus is right and all the DRM and patent cooperation stuff
In any case, the gamble might be a long one, but one certainly can't blame
Duncan
Oh the irony Posted Jan 17, 2007 0:37 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] When I first learned about GNU, the most popular implementation was GNU/Solaris. Linux became the first good-enough free software kernel (though it didn't beat BSD by much, it was enough) and suddenly GNU/Linux blossomed. Now, GNU/Solaris could come back into vogue, but this time as a free software kernel chosen because it's more free than Linux, rather than as a necessary evil used because there was no free software kernel to replace it with. History repeating, in a way, but greatly improved.
AFAIK Solaris still needs some work to make it though. Hardware support is particularly bad, no?
Oh the irony Posted Jan 17, 2007 2:14 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yes. Hardware support is poor.
Also there is a great deal of propriatory drivers that are nessicary to even get to the same point as vanilla Solaris support. A lot of that that had come built-in had to be removed from OpenSolaris.
For instance 3D support is going to be bad.
But it may not be hard to turn around.
Personally I like the Linux kernel very much, but there are lots of aspects of it that make being a driver developer very difficult. I've had plenty of FREE SOFTWARE drivers that I could never get working after kernel upgrades.
Linux is relatively bug-free, but the majority of the problems in terms of stability and other bugs are going to come from the in-kernel drivers themselves.
So maybe people who are good drivers writers can spend their time writing new drivers and getting rid of bugs in old ones in Solaris (due to it's ABI stability) versus those same developers having to spend all their time just keeping up with the rate of churn in Linux.
Also stuff like Dtrace may help getting performance and other issues solved in much simplier ways then is currently possible in Linux. Like being able to write a set of rules and insert them into a running kernel to find problems versus having to patch and recompile a kernel a dozen times.
Who knows?
I know that right now certainly driver support is why you won't see anybody producing 'Desktop OpenSolaris' any time soon.
Oh the irony Posted Jan 17, 2007 12:56 UTC (Wed) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] it would be intriguing if we could get a driver compatibility layer (by tweaking OpenSolaris GPLv3 and Linux GPLv2) that would allow drivers to be written once and to run on both. Probably impossible considering the Linux devs have declared Linux to be a moving target and the interwoven nature of drivers and their respective kernel... a guy can dream can't he?
Oh the irony Posted Jan 17, 2007 14:20 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] This is really just another request for a frozen binary interface in disguise. I think Linux has demonstrated that eschewing a binary interface can work very well, and does work very well for Linux. Trying to lock down the driver interface goes against Linux development practices, which are working fine.
Further, it is _desirable_ that if you are going to have "duplicate" free unix kernel projects that it be possible for their interfaces to diverge, so that different approaches may be explored and ultimately the systems may improve.
In short, I think the benefits for "shared drivers" would be much lower than the benefits for "duplicate drivers", and they might be lower with more manpower in terms of dealing with the unavoidable eventual in-kernel design cruft resulting from frozen interfaces. Solaris certainly has been, in the past, much less willing to change programming interfaces than Linux has been, so maybe Solaris alone will feel more comfortable to you. Personally, I'm hoping that OpenSolaris's openness encourages them to be willing to dump clearly awful solutions (how long was STREAMS the default?) and deploy improvements.
GPL3 will become dominant in all GNU/Linux distros Posted Jan 17, 2007 14:36 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] First, let me say that if these rumours turn out to be true, and Open Solaris really does get released under the GPL3 (complete with its anti-DRM and anti-software patent clauses), I think this is an excellent move. Kudos to Sun.
I think it's important to remember that GNU/Linux distros are already a giant melting pot of all kinds of Free and Open Source software licenses (GPL2, MIT, Apache, BSD, etc. etc.). The GPL2-licensed kernel is just one software component.
It may be true that the Linux kernel will remain GPL2, but because so many essential parts of a functioning GNU/Linux distro will become licensed under the GPL3 over the coming year (and beyond), the GPL3 will, in my opinion, become the dominant license.
I don't think that a GPL3-licensed kernel gives Open Solaris a huge advantage over a predominantly GPL3-licensed GNU system contianing a GPL2-licensed Linux kernel. In fact, I think it will make hardly any difference at all.
On a slight tangent, I think that the fact that Sun will be throwing their weight behind GPL3 adds to the size of the GPL3 Tsunami that is about to hit the corporate software industry. The GPL3 will be unstoppable, and big companies such as Novell, HP, etc. will be forced to accept its "playing field-levelling" anti-software patent terms.
We could be in for a very interesting year ahead. I predict that the patent terms of the Novell-Microsoft agreement will be swept away by the GPL3 tidal wave as Microsoft is forced back to the negotiating table.
GPL3 will become dominant in all GNU/Linux distros Posted Jan 17, 2007 16:07 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Indeed. Even at its most extreme, a GPLed OpenSolaris kernel replacement would hardly be akin to the Unix->Windows or Windows->Linux takeovers: a few pieces of low-level-tangled userspace would need to be rewritten, probably the most nifty parts of Linux (e.g. udev) would gain reimplementations in OpenSolaris, and... hardly anything else would need to change at all. Users, developers, almost everyone would see things almost unchanged.
The free software ecology has already coped with changes almost on this scale with nary a ripple. After all, it's not the kernel software that matters, ultimately: it's the sum of all the software, and the free software developers, and they're not going to vanish. There's already a diversity of free kernels: one growing dominant over the others is just a change in degree, not in kind.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 16, 2007 21:57 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] sorry. I have to say it:RMS/GNU pownt Sun Microsystems.
Very good news this is. Now we will see how much a kernel realy matters. I am certainly going to take a strong look at OpenSolaris once they release it under a decent license.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 16, 2007 22:02 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ooops. Looks like the title is a bit misleading.
According to the Eweek article Sun has refused to confirm the 'leak'/rumor about the license change.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 17, 2007 2:34 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I know that the FSF has been working hard with Sun to come up with an agreeable license. But I wouldn't be surprised if this leak is premature, and there are unresolved details. I expect that they'll work it out.
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 17, 2007 16:08 UTC (Wed) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] Concur. Simon Phipps made it fairly clear in London at the first OpenSolaris User Group (on 2005-06-20, the week of release), that Sun would have liked to have used the GPLv3 if the license had been ready. CDDL ("cuddle"), with it's explicit patent handling is effectively a stop-gap measure, but also the solution that allows OpenSolaris to be available here-and-now today with the blessing of Sun's management. OpenSolaris is a technically Good(tm) kernel, short of drivers; and the CDDL is a technically Good(tm) license, short of mindshare. My gut-feeling is that I don't expect either situation to change in the short-term...
Sun to release OpenSolaris under GPL version 3 (Linux-Watch) Posted Jan 16, 2007 22:40 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] This is the last nail in the coffin for the "GPL v3 would hurt Linux" myth IMHO:— the code contributions of Tivo & friends can't approach what could be assimilated from Solaris — with this kind of backing no business is going to fear the "extremist communist GNU licence"
In a world where good FLOSS code is the only respected value unit, the balance just moved in a big way
You are forgetting something Posted Jan 17, 2007 10:27 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] The news is that Solaris might be *dual-licenced*.
As the CDDL is one of those licences, Tivo-like practices using OpenSolaris will *still* not be prevented.
This is more of a publicity stunt for Sun rather than a win for the FSF as the FSF agenda isn't furthered one bit until Sun drops the CDDL.
You are forgetting something Posted Jan 17, 2007 14:00 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] Does not matter. I don't care too much about the Solaris side actually.
What matters is some people have warned going GPL v3 would mean Linux would loose all the code contributions Tivoers do¹. I doubt these contributions come anywhere near what could be imported from a GPL v3 Solaris in a GPL v3 Linux.
¹ People know they exist. Are they significant?
You are forgetting something Posted Jan 18, 2007 1:33 UTC (Thu) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link] I think the actual amount of code is trivial; the issue seems to be thatthe kernel devs (or at least some of them, Linus being the most vocal) do not want to force restrictions on hardware developers beyond reciprocity.
While I think GPLv3 has its merits, their code, their rules.
You are forgetting something Posted Jan 18, 2007 13:18 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] SUN is voting with its code right now
You are forgetting something Posted Jan 17, 2007 20:35 UTC (Wed) by b3timmons (guest, #40286) [Link] Assuming the rumor is true, it would be nice if Sun would eventually comment on whether using GPLv3 and its exceptions clause would allow them to drop the CDDL.
Maybe Solaris GPLv3 will be the GNU purists OS Posted Jan 17, 2007 0:11 UTC (Wed) by jayorke (guest, #10685) [Link] This could be very good news. Linux could live on as a GPLv2 OS for those who are more moderate in their software freedom ideals (i.e. the freedom to run proprietary drivers OR non-proprietary drivers) and OpenSolaris GPLv3 could be the OS for those that can't stand the thought of software drivers they can't see the source code for. BSD has found a place for itself, why not a different GPLv2 OS and a GPLv3 OS.
Maybe Solaris GPLv3 will be the GNU purists OS Posted Jan 17, 2007 4:49 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (guest, #42402) [Link] "...for those who are more moderate in their software freedom ideals (i.e. the freedom to run proprietary drivers OR non-proprietary drivers)..."
'Idealist': noun : Someone who is thinking in practical terms a couple of steps ahead of you.
FFS please stop trying to smear people with this label and these religious 'radical/moderate' associations.
Nobody is taking away your freedom to run proprietary kernel modules. The GPL3 doesn't even threaten to do that. It can't. You still retain the right to do whatever you want with the code. Clauses in the GPL only apply to distribution. You can hack the kernel to link with whatever code you want for your own use.
Sun the idealistic Posted Jan 17, 2007 8:03 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Funny that a $21-billion corporation should be the idealistic party, while a bunch of independent hackers spread around the world, some of them collaborating in their spare time (well not that many nowadays), should be the capitalistic pro-market party.I also think that GPLv3 must make more business sense than v2, since many companies are helping in the drafting process. In particular, anti-DRM provisions seem to be welcome by hardware makers, in contrast with some opinions from kernel developers. It is no wonder if you think about it: DRM does not help hardware makers. E.g. supporting Vista looks like a nightmare. According to kernel devs, DRM must win or lose in the marketplace. Well, now Linux will have a worthy competitor in that market, I'm sure they will welcome this competition.
Maybe Solaris GPLv3 will be the GNU purists OS Posted Jan 22, 2007 18:50 UTC (Mon) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] 'Idealist': noun : Someone who is thinking in practical terms a couple of steps ahead of you.I like this! It might be a touch pithier as: "Idealist: a pragmatist who thinks a few moves ahead". Of course, RMS has already addressed the pragmatism/idealism dichotomy.
|
|||||||||||