Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com)
News.com covers Jonathan Schwartz's talk in Shanghai, where he said Sun would "open source" Solaris.
"A problem that Schwartz wants to avoid is having Solaris splintered into
different distributions like Linux, which he said creates application
incompatibilities. Going the way of Linux-type licensing, he suggested,
creates open source but not open standards."
(Log in to post comments)
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com) Posted Jun 2, 2004 19:25 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Going the way of Linux-type licensing, he suggested, creates open source but not open standards.If this is so bad, then why Sun forked SuSE Linux for their own "Java" Desktop System? And isn't the LSB an open standard? How long has it been since I've read anything from Sun that made any sense? It seems like half of Sun is busy shoveling FUD, while the other half is working on a Linux strategy just in case the FUD doesn't stick. It seems more like desperation than a strategy.
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com) Posted Jun 2, 2004 19:41 UTC (Wed) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] A problem that Schwartz wants to avoid is having Solaris splintered into different distributionsTranslation: We will retain total control. ...which makes the cynic in me suspect they only want some unpaid development help - Sun volunteers rather than Sun employees.
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com) Posted Jun 2, 2004 19:47 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] The truth is probably in between. They don't mind having other peoplelearn from the code, but they certainly don't want a situation where some other company becomes more expert at a popular modified version of the code.
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com) Posted Jun 2, 2004 21:02 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] I think we have heard this before.. over and over again from Sun. They say they are going to do one thing, hype it up, and then deliver far from what expectations were set. (Sunview, Java, etc etc) Basically show us the code and the license.. and then maybe we will be impressed.
Sun warms to open source for Solaris (News.com) Posted Jun 3, 2004 1:57 UTC (Thu) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link] This is nothing but a thinly disguised FUD tactic. Sun (a very schizophrenic company) isn't committed to making Solaris "open-source": they're fuzzy on exactly when they're supposed to do this, and instead of making it "open-source", they will be giving Solaris an "open-source" flavour (whatever that means). Compare this to Apple, which has a more clear-cut "open-source"-like strategy with its MacOS X.While they have the ear of the press, with an interview containing the "open-source" buzzword, they can't help themselves but to throw a bit of FUD in the Linux direction and more specifically at Red Hat. Does Red Hat have you running scared, Sun ? In the end, a company which makes deals with Microsuck is not to be trusted.
timeline? Posted Jun 3, 2004 8:07 UTC (Thu) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] I wish someone would make a timeline of all the wierd things Sun has said about Linux.My favourite is "Solaris is our version of Linux". Right.
I need someone who knows, to clarify the following... Posted Jun 3, 2004 11:04 UTC (Thu) by conz (subscriber, #4784) [Link] 1) How much of Solaris is Sun's own copyright?2) How much of Solaris is Sys V R.4 code, and therefore not Sun's property to open source? 3) Does Sun have a licence from AT&T USL which allows it to open source any aspect of Solaris?
I need someone who knows, to clarify the following... Posted Jun 3, 2004 12:23 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Answer to question 2 ...It seems from Groklaw, that a hell of a lot of SVR4 is Sun's code, not AT&T's. So it wouldn't surprise me if AT&T licenced SVR4 off of Sun, and in return Sun got rights to AT&T's earlier code :-) Okay, I may have taken the situation to its extremes, but we don't know, and that scenario is at least as plausible as any other. Just think. It's widely assumed that one of the reasons the BSD/USL settlement is sealed is to hide just how weak USL's claim to own Unix really was. And it's suspected that Sun's contribution to the "standard Unix code base" is at least similar to BSD's, and may dwarf AT&T's. Certainly they seem to have negotiated their buyout licence from a position of strength, with AT&T not Sun making the concessions... Cheers,
I need someone who knows, to clarify the following... Posted Jun 3, 2004 19:14 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] What about the license Sun bought from SCO a year ago? Does it pose any other restrictions? Or does it give Sun any extra rights regarding Solaris' code?
|
|||||||||||