> By Sun apologists you probably mean me, as I've been one of the more vocal on LWN.
I'm more annoyed at people like trasz, actually, who just had to jump in and explain that no, DTrace's license incompatibility wasn't due to a strategic decision on Sun's part, it was due to problems with Linux's licensing.
I believe the following statements are true: Sun open-sourced much of their code in an attempt to join the FOSS community, because they believed there were benefits in terms of goodwill, contributions from external developers, etc. When doing so, they wrote a license for OpenSolaris that was designed at least in part with the explicit goal of keeping OpenSolaris code out of Linux. Since there's some tension in their framing themselves as an open OS company while declining to share their code with the most important existing open OS, there are some people at Sun who have at various times tried to obfuscate the intentions behind the wording of the CDDL, the avoidance of questions about ZFS patents, etc., by implying that their intention was to share the code with everyone, and if that isn't happening, then it's somehow those Linux guys fault and has nothing to do with them. Any objections to this?
I don't see how any of that's Sun bashing -- I can come up with examples of much worse corporate behavior if you like :-). It's all perfectly logical given their necessities, and I absolutely think that they were within their rights in all of that. They don't owe me anything.
But I do find it annoying that Sun has tried to mislead me (e.g., into treating them like they're some great FOSS hero, *while* they in practice decline to release their code in a form that's usable to me), and even more annoying that one can't even talk about their those reasonable strategic decisions without random third parties showing up to cloud the air with obfuscatory rhetoric. Or something like that.