Slashdot Log In
Sun Considering GPL For OpenSolaris
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Nov 13, 2006 05:31 PM
from the it's-spreading dept.
from the it's-spreading dept.
narramissic writes, "At an event today to formally open-source Java, Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's president and CEO, and Rich Green, the company's senior VP of software had an exchange in which Schwartz put Green on the spot about using GPL for OpenSolaris: 'Are you averse to changing the license, Rich Green?' Schwartz asked. 'Certainly not,' Green responded, prompting the Sun CEO to fire back in a half-joking manner: 'Will you GPL Solaris, Mr. Green?' 'We will take a close look at it,' Green said, adding that it was possible that the familiarity and comfort level many developers have with the GPL may result in Sun adopting it for OpenSolaris." Another note about Sun's decision to use the GPL for Java comes from reader squiggleslash, who writes: "According to Jonathan Schwartz, the decision of Novell and Microsoft to '(suggest) that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid' is what prompted Sun to finally come down on using the GPL for Java. So I guess every cloud has a silver lining."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Sun Considering GPL For OpenSolaris
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 215 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Money Pressure (Score:4, Interesting)
Novell and Microsoft do not.
Re:Money Pressure (Score:5, Funny)
(http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15 2007, @11:50AM)
Yep. Microsoft doesn't make [xbox.com] any [microsoft.com] money [microsoft.com] from hardware sales [zunescene.com] at all. No siree. Not a dime. And Novell never made anything from hardware sales either [everything2.com].
Which *version* of the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 23, @11:40AM)
More interesting than this, IMHO, is to note that for Java they choose to use the "GNU GPL v2 only" (plus Classpath exception) license, not the more common "GPL v2 or any later version".
This is what the Java FAQ says about it:
And, from this InfoQ article [infoq.com] about the GPLed Java:
That would be awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 29, @04:31PM)
Of course, there'd be a problem with that whole "gnu's NOT unix" thing...
Re:ZFS (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 05, @10:56PM)
I'd love to see all this in Linux but I'm thinking even if it were GPLed there would be a lot of work to do to port it. And of course after its ported, the Linux devs would probably make a big stink about accepting it using lines like "a file system should only put files on a block device!" ZFS however is a different approach to storing files and in many ways much better.
Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
This could be a bigger boon than a lot of people realize. The licensing differences between Solaris and Linux are one of several factors slowing them from adopting ideas and code from one another. OpenSolaris users could benefit from ease of importing more cutting edge features from Linux. Linux could benefit by having access to some of the cleaner implementation ideas from Solaris. I've felt for some time that much of what holds linux back is the unwillingness to adopt newer and better features out of a fear that a given distribution will be less compatible with others and because Linux is trying to wear many hats. Too many decisions are made to benefit its use as a server or make it easier to use on a portable, while leaving it behind others for a workstation.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux would get DTrace, ZFS, etc. Those techs are about as cutting edge as it gets. What would Solaris get?
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, but will it change anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
More cool stuff in Solaris? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
The thing that I always hear talk about is dtrace (currently CDL, and tightly integrated with the Solaris kernel), but looking at the WP article [wikipedia.org] on it, apparently it's been partially brought over to BSD and OS X. Then there are also containers and that "self-healing" fault-isolation system, which I don't pretend to understand.
Perhaps there are just as many cool, compelling features in Darwin that aren't talked about, and deserve being shared with Linux and other OSes
Yeah sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
A company the size of Sun does not move that quickly, especially so far as legal matters go. Besides, there has been talk of GPLing Java before Christmas for months.
Sun saw a chance to take a shot at Microsoft/Novell and they took it. Can't say I fault them, but its fairly obviously a lie.
Re:Yeah sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's been talk of open sourcing it by Christmas, and reports that it might be under the GPL (and reports that it might be under a different license.)
That does not prove, however, that the Novell/MS deal didn't prompt the final decision for Sun. Certainly, they'd already done the analysis and had a pretty good idea of the pluses and minuses of the various options. But certainly the Novell/MS deal remixed those slightly, and might have tipped things in the GPL.
Wow. (Score:1)
Did I wake up in some alternate universe or something, though? I mean, Novell sold the community out and now Sun is adopting the GPL?
Did opening Solaris do anything? (Score:2)
(http://www.foobarsoft.com/)
To me this sounds like a simple off-hand comment and unlikely to happen.
That said, can someone who is more familiar with the whole thing tell me: did has opening Solaris had much of an effect at all in any way? Has it stopped market share loss? Increased market share? Increased software availability? Has anything really changed?
Solaris - GPL'd? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 29 2005, @05:15PM)
In any case, I'll be getting to know Solaris 10 better in the coming months, but the GPL would just put it over the top.
SUN GPL'ing OpenSolaris? (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you, Sun (Score:2)
(http://www.karastathis.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 05 2005, @07:51PM)
Sun may have taken MS $$$ to not GPL Solaris (Score:1)
(http://to.contact.me/reply.to.my.comment)
Sun is in trouble, and according to FSF Lawyer Eben Moglen's (wild) allegations in his talk at a recent Free Software Foundation Associate Members [fsf.org]hip meeting, they previously (2005?) took a bribe from Microsoft to keep OpenSolaris incompatible with the GPL (in exchange for financing they believed was desperately needed for miniaturizing CPU size with Fujitsu to compete with IBM(?) in the server market). Sun is now flip-flopping like a struggling politician; they caved to the pressure of GPL'ing Java despite (allegedly) accepting a bribe to keep Solaris less free. Like many on Slashdot, I consider the FSF and the F/OSS development community greater long-term allies than Microsoft, so maybe Sun will release Solaris 11 or 12 under the GPL.
The Free Software Foundation has made no announcements on either of these developments. What does this mean for the GCC/Java code, which is largely functional? How would GPL'ed Solaris utilities impact use and development of the GNU utilities? (Yes, I realize that the Solaris utilities share code with BSD utilities given their common ancestors, but Solaris has the shiny stamp-of-approval from major security auditors.)
It had to be said... (Score:2)
(http://www.building26.org/)
Yeah Right (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.arl.wustl.edu/~mgeorg | Last Journal: Saturday January 14 2006, @01:59PM)
I Just Have One Question? (Score:2)
Not to start an argument, but wasn't there an article [slashdot.org] posted on this very website telling us how OpenSolaris was/is the Linux killer*? So far how has that one panned out? Other F/OSS operating systems never really make it to relevancy because frankly, their hardware support is always years behind that of Linux. That very reason is why I switched (at least for now) from BSD, back to Linux.
*I must note that it funny that they compared OpenSolaris to SUSE - clearly the slowest of the major Linux distros.
Free DOES have a price (Score:2)
(http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 18, @12:25PM)
ZFS (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking market away from IBM with GPLv3 (Score:1)
Sun should eventually put OpenSolaris under GPLv3 when it comes out simply because it fixes the GPL2 in important ways and offers important advantages such as greater compatibility with other licenses. But additional kinds of motivation can be given.
The following explanation involves the kind of symbolic considerations that partly characterize the Java move to the GPL. It too may help Sun gain against IBM, a heavy proponent of the Linux kernel.
A possible way for Sun and OpenSolaris to gain even more mindshare is by exploiting a division in the FOSS community. Some top Linux kernel developers decided against GPLv3 very vehemently while decrying a split in the wider developer community of v2 vs. v3. A major factor in the decision is to allow for enforcement of DRM, a factor which may not constrain OpenSolaris's direction so much.
The important (unexaggerated) divide involves kernel developers. OpenSolaris has more to gain than to lose by going GPLv3. To users and developers in general, Sun comes off as an even bolder, more progressive leader, just as with the Java announcement Monday.
The FOSS community dwarfs in number the few dozen kernel developers described above and it's safe to say the most of the community were caught off guard by the announcement from the developers; the expectation was that there would be an eventual move of the kernel to GPLv3. Sun could use the same kind of exquisite timing of the Java announcement on the heels of the Novell/MS flub and announce OpenSolaris under the GPLv3, satisfying the unfulfilled expectation of having a kernel under the GPLv3. IBM would be caught off guard again.
The Java move was disruptive, and this move is disruptive in the same way with little downside. It's not for the sake of disruption but disruptive against the likes of IBM.
My, oh my, oh my. OpenSolaris displacing Linux? (Score:1)
With it looking like Linus and company are going to be averse to GPL3 (to wit, they very likely couldn't go GPL3 even if they *wanted* to), what if -- just "what if", mind you -- OpenSolaris began plans to go GPLv3? Hm. I wonder... GNU/Solaris?
That would be something, now wouldn't it? I wonder if you'd see the FSF (and a fair portion of the rest of the free software community) jump on OpenSolaris an the preferred free software kernel for GNU? (Ahem -- until HURD is ready, of course).
Very interesting prospects indeed.
not open sourcing the Java programming language (Score:2)
On this basis, whether they GPL Solaris will depend on how strong they think the threat from Linux is. Does Sun have any other realistic choice?
GNU = Gnu's Now UNIX (Score:1)
(http://azrulhasni.cjb.net/)
Solaris evolves too slow (Score:1)
Re:Another dumb move (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another dumb move (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://neilmcallister.com/)
Not to mention the fact that, although it is true that Sun is gradually open sourcing all of its software, most of what Sun makes it enterprise software. What company is really going to use Sun's RFID software to run a warehouse floor, or use Sun's identity management software to manage authentication and access control for an entire enterprise, and not get a support contract from Sun? Open sourcing this type of stuff probably doesn't impact Sun's sales negatively one iota. Open sourcing Java may be riskier, but I'm curious to see how it really pans out.
Re:Another dumb move (Score:2)
(http://www.lcscanada.com/jaf)
I'd imagine from selling computers, the same as they've always done. I don't think OpenSolaris is a profit center for them now, so GPL'ing it shouldn't cost them any profits (at least, not directly).
GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it.
Ever hear of an a little OS called Linux? It's done fairly well under the GPL...
Re:Another dumb move (Score:3)
(http://www.rumour.com/)
Re:Aw, that's just DANDY! (Score:1)
Re:Makes more sense than Java (Score:2)
(http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
With all the complaints about the Java community process being slow and bureaucratic, and the free Java implementations lagging behind in features, I think having a good, open source Java implementation is a Good Thing in it's own right.
Also, I don't know what you mean by the model of contribution for Java not being as easily understood as the OS world. It's not like there aren't [python.org] any [ruby-lang.org] successful [inria.fr] open [sourceforge.net] source [call-with-...uation.org] programming [gnu.org] language [gnu.org] implementations [lua.org] yet [haskell.org].
Re:Another dumb move (Score:3, Funny)
(http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
Re:Another dumb move (Score:2)
Sun has made some of the worst strategic decisions in the IT industry for the past decade or so. Why would GPL'ing their main products be any better? Where are they going to make money? Bake sales? Are they going to pay their people with warm fuzzy feelings? Yeah, Sun may do it. But I'm betting it'll kill them long term. In fact, now may be a good time to short the stock, and expect the payoff to be complete in about 5 years.
Sun will make money exactly the same way they do now - hardware sales and support contract.
Solaris has never been a significant revenue stream for Sun. Heck, they haven't even had a nominal charge on it for years.
GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it. This won't be any different.
Well, it'd be pretty disastrous for a company with a revenue stream derived primarily from software sales, but that hardly describes Sun.
What about checking facts for a change? (Score:2)
Surely, you may want to talk to the CEOs of MySQL [mysql.com] and Qt developers Trolltech [trolltech.com], who release their projects under the GPL and do turn a profit. In the case of Sun, as others already have mentioned, they make money on the hardware, and commoditising software is only good for them.
Of course, these are corporations. Speaking of private persons, what about a certain Linus Torvalds, who is now fairly well-off?
Re:BSD License (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL DTrace for teh win! (Score:4, Interesting)
When you can get an open-sourced carrier-grade OS like (Open)Solaris at no cost,
why still Linux?
OpenSolaris surely currently lacks a lot of (x86) hardware support, no drivers
for widespread hardware, etc. - but as more and more users actively use and
support OpenSolaris, more and more vendors will provide those.
What I don't like about Linux - Linux (and a lot of Linux software), that is - is
the neverending story of changing APIs - use something, update something else - Oops.
I have a Linux system here, with at least three different versions of, e.g., BerkeleyDB.
1.85 compat, 3.something, 4.idontknow. API changes, incompatibilities, you name it.
Ever tried to compile popular Linux software on another Un*x? Whenever I encounter some
piece of GPL-licensed software, I can almost guarantee it won't compile on Solaris, Tru64,
You want DTrace? Zones? Use Solaris. Is there any technical reason (no politics, please) where
using Linux actually offers any benefit?
(Yes, "smc" and all those java-based admin utilities suck. But commandline-based alternatives
do exist.)
This is not a flamebait. Serious answers will be appreciated.
*cough*TROLLTECH*couch* (Score:2)
(http://hisham.livejournal.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 29 2006, @03:15PM)
Re:Makes more sense than Java (Score:1)
I may misunderstand the issues, but I think GPL Java impacts distribution a lot. It can now be included in Debian, Redhat etc. Contribution/modification will allow it to be ported without the same licencing problems, I think BSD's have had trouble with this in the past. The way in which contribution to the official java is handled will be secondary to this in some ways.
Re:Sunstroke (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday November 09, @04:36PM)
Sun didn't give money to SCO for nothing. They bought rights to SCO Unix, so that they could incorporate the drivers into Solaris. At the time, SCO Unix had relatively good Intel/PC support, and Solaris, quite honestly, wouldn't run on 75% of the PCs out there (I know this first hand. I have a Solaris 8 media set. I couldn't get it to install on a Thinkpad or a cheap VIA based box. Even Darwin ran better on both.)
Part of the problem was how they worded it. They pointed out at the time they'd bought the rights in such a way that Solaris users would never have to worry about being sued by SCO. This made it sound like they'd paid a blackmail charge, rather than actually buying the right to redistribute actual (as opposed to imagined) SCO code.
They're now talking openly about moving to the GPL away from the CDDL. I can't help but feel that's good news.