Sun Considering GPL For OpenSolaris

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."

Money Pressure

Remember, SUN makes money on hardware.
Novell and Microsoft do not.

Re:Money Pressure

Remember, SUN makes money on hardware.
Novell and Microsoft do not.

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

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:

Q: What about GPL v3? Have you considered using that license?
A: While Sun has been working with the Free Software Foundation as an active participant in the development and review of the GPL v3 license, this license is not yet complete. It is Sun's strong desire to complete the open sourcing of its Java technology implementations in a timely manner, so we made the decision to use an existing, established license paradigm rather than wait for GPL v3 to be completed. Using GPL v2 does not indicate anything negative about GPL v3. Sun continues to be very actively and positively involved in this new license's development.

And, from this InfoQ article [infoq.com] about the GPLed Java:

GPLv3 was not chosen since it is not finished yet, but when asked if Sun will move to GPLv3 an official said "at this point we don't know what the final license will be."

That would be awesome!

Sorry for the fanboyish response, but I think releaseing various parts of Open Solaris under the GNU license would lead to some great developments. As I understand it, that would enable a lot of features of the Solaris kernel to be imported into Linux and vice-versa.

Of course, there'd be a problem with that whole "gnu's NOT unix" thing... ;)

Re:ZFS

ZFS has some really awesome features. Pooling, snapshots (no, not quite like LVM), RAID-Z, and native compression and soon encryption.

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

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

"OpenSolaris users could benefit from ease of importing more cutting edge features from Linux."

Linux would get DTrace, ZFS, etc. Those techs are about as cutting edge as it gets. What would Solaris get?

Re:Excellent

a host of filesystems, maybe? truckloads of drivers?

Great, but will it change anything?

It certainly removes one barrier. But look at Darwin. It's open source, but who else but a handful of people outside of Apple are working on it? So the point is not to knock the potential change. The point is will developers flock to Solaris as a result of this? Slowly but surely or not fast enough?

More cool stuff in Solaris?

This is just my understanding, but Darwin doesn't have nearly as many 'interesting' features that don't already exist in Linux. There is some neat Solaris-only stuff that people have wanted to bring into Linux for a while, but have not been able to because of licensing problems, and the work it would take to clean-room it.

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 ... but I've definitely not heard as much 'buzz' about them as you hear about some particular features of Solaris that are supposedly very neat.

Yeah sure...

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. If you believe that, want to buy some old dot com stocks I traded for some swamp land a few years back? Honest, ill give you a great deal!

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...

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.

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.

Thanks Sun, that would be great if OpenSolaris became available under the GPL along with Java. That would offer another very good open alternative to Linux. Something backed by Sun would be really good if Microsoft keeps up it's patent-FUD.

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?

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?

Wow, if that ever happened, wouldn't it be ironic - I can imagine a future where linux has been effectively preempted by the mega corporations, while Solaris is fully GPL'd and becomes the default first choice for the typical savvy unix admin.

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?

Oh lordy, then what's the RMS fan club going to bitch about?

Thank you, Sun

I support Sun GPLing Java and possible OpenSolaris. If I ever buy a rack server, I will make sure it's a Sun model.

Sun may have taken MS $$$ to not GPL Solaris

Wow, I nailed that on the head just this morning [slashdot.org] (about half an hour after the blog entry that I didn't know about); to me, this seemed obvious.

I can't help but think that the MS-Novell deal was the inspiration for this going into completion; the final straw, so to speak (or at least, the reason for the timing of the announcement). Consider it; Novell uses Mono and just got in bed with Microsoft.

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...

If they're this optimistic about such, why not pull some build out that worked with sun4m and make it just as open as what exists today - even if it amounts only to being a olive branch to systems long since devalued by that move. That, and it gives a very compact/cheap option for SPARC that doesnt skimp on the hardware (unlike U5/U10's cheapened design).

Yeah Right

Yeah, Right....I bet they'll GPL java before they allow that to happen. :)

I Just Have One Question?

What about hardware support?
 
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

You can't lock out competition.

ZFS

The best part about Sun being GPLed (the CDDL is a fine license itself) is that ZFS can be implemented as a kernel module rather than in FUSE. The idea of running non-trivial enterprise filesystem in user-space is abhorent to me.

Taking market away from IBM with GPLv3

Although as a business Sun would only make statements about existing licenses, i.e., GPLv2, Schwartz and others already are on record as liking how the GPLv3 is shaping up; the big jump was to GPL v.anything.

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?

Well well well. This is a rather interesting kettle of fish now isn't it?

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

Q: Are you open sourcing the Java language or the Java SE platform specifications?
A: We are not open sourcing the Java programming language, nor the platform APIs and specifications, which are governed by the JCP. We're open sourcing Sun's implementations of the Java SE and Java ME specifications. - FAQ [sun.com]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but it's important to note that Sun seem to be GPLing Java implementations which already face Open Source competition, but not Java itself. You might not realise this from most news reports.

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

if I may suggest ...

Solaris evolves too slow

I don't think Solaris has a bright future. It's evolving too slow, too many restrictions, too many problems. Just look at their attempt to update their /bin/ksh from ksh88 to ksh93 - they're working on it since a year and they are still not finished. The ksh93 integration project [opensolaris.org] takes an eternity or two while Linux does the same job in two weeks or a month. This shows the great failure of the Opensolaris project. They're too slow, often twelve times slower than Linux. Sun still has superior features, but at the current evolution rate it is just a matter of time when Linux becomes superior compared to Solaris and their management is deaf and blind and ignores the problem

Re:Another dumb move

Sun does two things well. Rock solid hardware and excellent service. GPLing Solaris and Java allows them to limit resources spend on software development. In addition, GPL compatible Solaris and Linux will blur the lines between the OS as they adopt each other's best features. Linux and Solaris might become binary compatible. Sun can focus on selling hardware and services.

Re:Another dumb move

Sun does two things well. Rock solid hardware and excellent service.

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

Where are they going to make money? Bake sales?

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

Earth to NineNine: they haven't charged for Solaris or Java all along. They are a services and hardware company. If Solaris technologies move to Linux, then Sun has only to be sure that their hardware is the best supported Linux product to make a go of it. This is smart, good business and it's about time Sun figured that out. OpenSolaris won't be closed because for now it's got a lead on SPARC hardware as well as some features which are unique to Sun but over time it is obvious to all but the most clueless that Linux is where the community is putting the majority of effort and one would have to be a complete cluebie not to see that it is not slowing down or conceding defeat on any front.

Re:Aw, that's just DANDY!

Wrong thread? [slashdot.org]

Re:Makes more sense than Java

``Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.''

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

Surely you're toking, mister Nineman.

Re:Another dumb move

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?

GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it.

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

BSD licence? Hello? I don't think Sun prefers a license where everyone (MS) can copy stuff from Solaris into their proprietary products without giving anything back. BSD license may have its place, but this is not it.

Re:GPL DTrace for teh win!

Hm...

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, .. - without spending hours for #ifdef'ing and patching the source.

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*

Enough said.

Re:Makes more sense than Java

Also though it is slightly off-topic I also think that Java under GPL would not benefit as much because the model of contribution is really not as easily understood as the OS world.

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

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.