Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Sun Microsystems Software Linux

Sun Grants Access to 1,600+ Patents 285

Posted by timothy from the read-that-fine-print-closely dept.
Insane_zoD writes "Looks like Sun is attempting to keep up with IBM in opening up patents for FOSS-based projects. From the news release: 'By giving open source developers free access to Sun OpenSolaris related patents under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), the company is fostering open innovation and establishing a leadership role in the framework of a patent commons that will be recognized across the globe.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Grants Access to 1,600+ Patents More

Sun Grants Access to 1,600+ Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Where is the license? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by passthecrackpipe ( 598773 ) * <passthecrackpipe AT hotmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:34AM (#11478654)
    Where is the license? All I see is a press release with vague language and much arm-waving. As I read the press release, the patents are only available for work in OpenSolaris (which as of now does not exist yet - only DTrace). Or work under the CDDL. Or both. Nowhere do I see a statement that says "use these patents with any OSI-approved licensed project, or indeed any clear statement as to right of use.

    Looks like there are some strings attached.
    • RTFA.

      Its CDDL

      We have drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 ("MPL"), called the Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL").

      We submitted the CDDL to the OSI for review and approval via the license-discuss@opensource.org mailing list on 2004-Dec-01, then based on community review submitted a revised version for review on 2004-Dec-17. The license was approved by the OSI board of directors on 2005-Jan-14.

      sounds good to me!. For me, this sets the future

      • Depends, though. Does the CDDL allow for re-licensing? If not, how can it be used in Linux, which deems it necessary to warn me on every boot up that beep.o isn't a GPL module?
        • Well, it's no GNU GPL, but it seems pretty ok to me:

          I've a feeling this section is relevant for the code being used in Linux or any other OS for that matter and vice versa. Besides didn't Sun decide to make OpenSolaris capable of running Linux apps? Correct me if I'm wrong?

          3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.

          You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this Lice

          • Sun are still working on binary emulation for closed-source code compiled for GNU/Linux.

            The CDDL prevents use of the code in Linux or any other GPLed project.

            This means those projects don't get a license to use the 1600 patents either.

            It might seem to be okay if you don't care about freedom to use the code in any way you like...

            • CDDL is just as "free" as GPL, just incompatible (same situation as with MPL and a whole bunch of other "accepted" free, GPL-incompatible licenses)

              it's just the decision whether you prefer the details of gpl, mpl, cddl, or one of the other hundreds free licenses out there.
              and yes, it effectively prevents opensolaris code to enter linux, boohoo - the same happened with gnupg being gpl (incl. all interface libraries) which made enigmail (gnupg for mozilla mail - which is MPL'd) pretty complicated
        • Linux is an inanimate object which doesn't have the capacity to deem anything necessary.

          Besides, the developers do that for your and their own benefit. If you are reporting a bug and you use proprietary drivers which they can neither examine the code of nor change, they want to know about it. Debugging the kernel with proprietary drivers installed is a nightmare.

        • Re:Where is the license? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Raphael ( 18701 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @09:26AM (#11479082) Homepage Journal
          Depends, though. Does the CDDL allow for re-licensing?

          Have a look at the CDDL [sun.com]. In section 3.1, it says:

          "Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. [...]"

          In addition, section 3.4 adds:

          "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder.[...]

          In other words, this license is incompatible with the GPL (probably on purpose). As a result, you cannot use any CDDL-licensed code in a GPL-licensed program and you cannot use any GPLed code in a CDDLed program. Both licenses are "viral" and they are mutually incompatible.

          So you cannot use any CDDLed code in Linux.

          • Re:Where is the license? (Score:5, Informative)

            by Raphael ( 18701 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @09:46AM (#11479181) Homepage Journal

            There is one thing that I forgot to mention in my previous comment: the CDDL is derived from the Mozilla Public Licence (MPL) 1.1 but at the end of the Detailed description of changes from the MPL [sun.com], you find this:

            Deleted Section 13 of the MPL because it was confusing and unnecessary.

            Section 13 of the MPL, titled "Multiple Licensed Code", allows the code to be licensed under the MPL or an alternative license described in Exhibit A (also deleted from the CDDL). For Mozilla, section 13 allows any derived code to be licensed under the MPL or GPL. Sun has removed this section from the CDDL. You can see it at the end of the Redline diffs between MPL1.1 and CDDL [sun.com] (PDF file).

            So any code released under the CDDL is definitely incompatible with the GPL. There is also no way to fix that (except if Sun re-released the code under a better license) because Sun has also removed the statements that allowed the code to be used under a "future version of this License" from section 3.1 and section 6 (now 4 in the CDDL).

            • Re:Where is the license? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Raphael ( 18701 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @10:58AM (#11479922) Homepage Journal

              I should add that even though section 13 has been removed, that does not prevent the author of a piece of software to release his/her code under the CDDL and GPL simulateneously. Authors can release their own work under as many licenses as they want. Dual-licensing is still possible, but not mentioned explicitely in the license. This has the disadvantage that any derivative works are likely to "forget" one of the licenses, unless all contributions are explicitely dual-licensed.

              I will grant Sun the benefit of the doubt and assume that their lawyers did not think that section 13 was necessary and that it could cause more problems than it solves. Only paranoid people would think that it was removed in order to make it less likely that some work would be dual-licensed with the CDDL and GPL.

              Anyway, this is not very important for the current discussion because:

              • The only code that has been released so far is licensed under the CDDL only (not GPL).
              • The code cannot be used in a GPLed program.
              • The code cannot even be linked with other modules licensed under the GPL (due to mutual incompatibilities in the licenses and GPL requirements that are not fulfilled by the CDDL).
              • The patent grant applies to the CDDL, not other Open Source licenses.
          • From the FAQ:

            "Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?

            CDDL is file-based; that means that files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; be sure to read and recognize those."

            http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html [opensolaris.org]

            So, it might be better to say the GPL is be incompatible

      • Re:Where is the license? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gormanly ( 134067 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:58AM (#11478737)

        RTFLicense. This code cannot be used in Linux, as any derivative works must remain licensed under Sun's CDDL, and any derivatives of GPL software must be licensed under the GPL. The 2 are fundamentally incompatible, deliberately.

        As for SCO, Sun signed a license with them last year in the run up to this release, which should make any Linux developer very wary of even looking at this codebase.

        SCO also hold zero patents...

        • By paying 9.3 millions dollars to SCO sun has acknowledged that some code in solaris is owned by SCO.

          SCO would be free to sue to any project that included code that came from solaris.
          • The extenstion to that is that Sun has a damm good reason not to just throw the Solaris source tree up on a ftp site somewhere. Remember when Netscape released their code? It diddnt so much as compile because of all the 3rd party stuff i it.

      • Re:Where is the license? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:15AM (#11478794)
        No matter what happens with SCO's malicious patent crusade
        SCO is saying nothing about patents, their lawsuit is about copyright. IBM did countersue based on (software) patent infringement, but that was just to pester them back, and has in se nothing to do with the SCO allegations.
    • A quick google search [google.com] shows that CDDL is available here [sun.com].

    • IBM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dolo666 ( 195584 )
      They are just following IBM [slashdot.org] and yet somehow I don't think Sun is grasping the true sense of Open Source. IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

      Sun's trying to grab the brass ring without really putting their best foot forward, IMHO. This is a ploy to get people using Solaris, and therefore I think it's stupid.

      • IBM's 500 out of 40000 patents is a good start, and the fact they are open to anyone doing open source is right where the spirit of open source remains fixed.

        The number of patents opened up doesn't mean a lot, nor does the true intentions of either company. The fact that the existance of software patents as such stifle innovation is a more pressing problem. What the FOSS community needs is freedom from patent restrictions imposed by law, not generous license grants to use patents currently held by these

      • IBM is going to drop the J-Bomb next week, an open-sourced Java SDK [gmane.org], at which point a whole lot of people are going to say, "Huh? Sun who?". I've got a dollar bet that that SDK is going on the ISO track which makes a whole other group of people happy.

        Sun is trying to appease the open-source 'freaks' here but they just don't know how. Some almost-at-the-top people have been singing the open source song for a couple years but a few people actually at the top at Sun don't get it and so you get half-assed cr

    • Patents can be enforced against Linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @09:07AM (#11478992) Homepage Journal
      I confirmed with Sun's PR person for this release (at Byte Communications), that the patents are only for use with software under the CDDL license and the OpenSolaris process. The patents can be enforced against GPL software, including Linux. In contrast, the IBM grant was for any OSI-accepted license.

      Bruce

      • According to the IBM legal statement, the patent license applies only for open source licenses which were listed at the OSI website "as of 01/11/2005" (which I assume means Jan 11, 2005; not November 1, 2005). Unfortunately I don't know how to check when a license was listed there. So does anyone know if the CDDL was already listed at that date? That is, may CDDL code use both IBM's and Sun's patents, or are they excluded from IBM's license through the date requirement?

        • Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux (Score:4, Informative)

          by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @09:59AM (#11479294) Homepage Journal
          I think the current IBM grant does not include the Sun license, but it does include MPL-derived licenses that are very similar in their text. IBM would probably not be able to justifiably resist a call to add the CDDL.

          Bruce

          • I think the current IBM grant does not include the Sun license, but it does include MPL-derived licenses that are very similar in their text. IBM would probably not be able to justifiably resist a call to add the CDDL.

            Well, I for one hope IBM doesn't add the CDDL until such a time as Sun adds the GPL to their license. Otherwise, IBM would be giving up the clout it might have to counterattack should Sun decide to launch a patent attack against GNU, Linux, or some other free software project that happens t

            • Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @11:32AM (#11480318) Homepage Journal
              I agree, their participation so far appears to be cynical and they seem to intend to operate as a "spoiler", fragmenting the Open Source community rather than supporting it. Otherwise, we would see them dual-licensing with CDDL and GPL, and their patents wouldn't be barred from use in Linux.

              OpenOffice should be second in importance only to the Linux kernel among Open Source developers. And yet it has almost no developer community - IMO due to Sun's conduct. It's not clear that Sun has learned anything from that.

              Bruce

              • The FSF's participation in the Open Source community seems to be cynical; they intend to fragment the Open Source community rather than supporting it.

                Otherwise, I'd be able to use GPL'ed code in my BSD-licensed projects.

                • Re:Patents can be enforced against Linux (Score:5, Informative)

                  by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @12:14PM (#11480881) Homepage Journal
                  The FSF was there first. It's the job of those who come later to be compatible with what already exists. But you are wrong about not being able to combine GPL and BSD works. GPL software and BSD software can be integrated together. The licenses are compatible with each other and the resulting larger work will be under the GPL. CDDL and GPL work can't be integrated that way. Their terms are not compatible.

                  Bruce

                  • Proprietary software existed before the GPL was written. Therefore, it's FSF's job to provide code that can be used in closed source projects.

                    Or do your absolute statements only apply if the conclusions agree with your politics?

                    • Geoff,

                      Don't be silly. In contrast to BSD licensing, proprietary software manufacturers had no intention of reciprocating and providing Stallman with access to their code. Their existing licenses at the time did not admit that possibility, and still do not. Stallman could not make a larger work with compatible licensing, he could only offer his work for someone else to parasitize, without any return to Stallman or the community. And I don't see any reason why he should have done that.

                      Bruce

                  • Well, not quite.

                    The GNU project was started in reaction to licenses that closed down communities. Its goal (though it has expanded further) was a return to that community spirit. That community existed because of the lack of licenses, "good" licenses, or licenses that just were not enforced - or a bit of all of them. Licenses existed that "fulfilled the goals of government grant projects".

                    It is an oversimplification to say that the FSF and the GPL was first. What they did do first was to attach political
                • Look at the respective sizes of the FSF and BSD communities, and you'll see why the GPL is so successful. People know that their work isn't going to be coopted by a commercial outfit without further benefit to the community.

                  I'm not complaining about the CDDL; I'm disappointed in Sun, but it's their choice. As is your choice to use a BSD license. The GPL is my choice.
                  • Thanks for the revisionist history. The sizes of the communities prove nothing. Linux surpassed BSD because there were concerns that BSD's code might be vulnerable to the sort of thing SCO's trying to do to Linux, long before SCO even existed.

                    The problem wasn't that people worried that corporations would steal there code; the problem was the rumors that UCB stole code from AT&T and that BSD was on shaky legal ground. By the time the Regents eliminated the issue, Linux has already caught on.

                    You mi

  • Cool (Score:4, Informative)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:35AM (#11478655) Homepage Journal
    Does this mean Linux Vendors can now charge their clients a per-seat licensing fee? [slashdot.org] (which as we all know is a revolutionary invention in software licensing, owned exclusively by Sun).

  • And what is the percentage? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jmo_jon ( 253460 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:35AM (#11478660) Journal
    Very nice that they do some good but like IBM is this only an empty gesture. I admint I don't know how many patents they hold but I doubt 1600 is remotely close to that amount.
    • Percentages don't matter.

      If I was doing XYZ and I was restricted because of a patent, and the owner decided to open up the patent, then I would be happy.
      It wouldn't matter whether they opened up everything else.

      This is like Bill Gates yesterday giving away a shit load of money - people were moaning that its insignificant compared to his total worth.
      Its still a few magnitudes larger than what you or I could achieve.

      I actually think the real reason for opening up patents isn't however to help the little ma
      • Well, given that they license the patents only for CDDL licensed code, the intent is IMHO crystal clear: It gives OpenSolaris on one hand the needed credibility (because what is the source code worth if you can't use it due to patents), and on the other hand gives a distinct competitive advantage to it over other OSS code (because it can use those patents, while Linux, BSD etc. can't).

  • Almost free software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:35AM (#11478661) Journal
    So what we have here is software that is essentially free in just about any way you'd like to describe it. In general, the only thing that is different between this license and the BSD license is that you are not allowed to make a profit on the sale of any software you develop and you may not close the source.

    The not closing the source is what the GPL is most interested in. Unfortunately, I think that just because the owner of the patents is not releasing them under the GPL, the GNU/FSF folks aren't going to be so willing to accept this as "True" free software.

    Even though it is for all intents and purposes.

    • Re:Almost free software (Score:2, Informative)

      by DFJA ( 680282 )
      I think the phrase "Almost free" describes it accurately. Sun doesn't really believe in Free, it believes in Free*, where the * denotes a footnote that means it isn't really what it appears to be.

      In fact the whole of Sun's approach seems to work like this. Java is not Free (although their implementation is free, as in zero cost). Even OpenOffice has some strings attached, as all contributions to the project have to have their copyrights assigned to Sun, so they can then use them in the proprietary Star Off
      • FSF also requires copyrights assigned to them for contributions to their projects (or certainly used to), so this requirement certainly doesn't make a project non-free*.

        *unless of course you regard free as being BSD-free and GPL as less free due to it having more restrictions...

        • I know that the FSF *recommended* a copyright transfer, or at least specific rights to enforce code as a legally bound interested party.

          I know you can offer certain copyright rights to other parties without impinging your own rights if you want to dual license your code.

    • the GNU/FSF folks aren't going to be so willing to accept this as "True" free software.

      The one and only reason the GNU/FSF folks will accept this license is if it meets their previously stated criteria. They have a definition, and other licenses either fit or not. It's really not complicated, nor does it need to be heated.

    • Re:Almost free software (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, the real problem with these so-called "open" patents is they unfortunately legitimize software patents. We shouldn't have to get a license to use these patents since they never should have been granted in the first place.
    • In general, the only thing that is different between this license and the BSD license is that you are not allowed to make a profit on the sale of any software you develop

      Of course you can, section 2.1 of the CDDL grants you a distribution license that does not exclude selling the software for profit. Everything else would be a violation of section 1 of the OSI's open source definition.
    • Well since the FSF folks were here first you'd think that sun would make their license compatible. But they worked very very hard to make sure that it was not compatible.

      Why? That's the question that needs to be answered. If sun actually intended this code base to be free why are they excluding the GPL on purpose? DO they actually see any harm (if so what) or is this just something MS asked for and got?

    • BSD too (Score:2)

      by Xtifr ( 1323 )
      First of all, the FSF is quite happy to acknowledge the freeness of free-but-GPL-incompatible licenses. They recommend against using such licenses for obvious reasons - they're still trying to build a fully GPL system, and their recommendations really only apply to people working on GNU. But they have no problem recognizing the freeness of, say, the Apache license or the MPL.

      Second of all, the BSD folks are going to be just as locked-out as the GNU folks. Maybe even more so. This new license of Sun's i

  • GPL compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dubdays ( 410710 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:37AM (#11478666)
    I was under the understanding that the CDDL wasn't GPL compatible (or at least there were some issues...please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not looking at the license right now). If this is the case, is there really any reason to care about this development?
    • Yes, it isn't GPL compatible.
    • If this is the case, is there really any reason to care about this development?
      There is more to Open Source than just GNU and Linux. Several less restrictive, more free licenses exist and plenty of projects use them.

    • Re:GPL compatible? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ultraw ( 99206 )
      Last time I checked, the Mozilla license, the BSD license, the Apache license... all not GPL compatible.

      Stop fighting the GPL-is-the-best-no-it-isnt war.

      As for the patents, it might indeed be in vain, but it might also encourage others to do so. The more idiotic patents are given away, the better.
      • You should check again then. The current mozilla and bsd licenses are gpl compatible.

        The apache license is hard to tell. The apache people think it is compatible, and the fsf think it isn't.
        • from the horse's mouth: (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html)

          Mozilla Public License (MPL)
          This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

          However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it)

          • so, MPL itself is free, but GPL-incompatible, but explicitely allows for other licenses.

            Correct.

            btw, CDDL is based on MPL 1.1, so it might just be the same wrt "freedom" and "GPL compatibility"

            Wrong, unfortunately.

            As I wrote in another comment [slashdot.org], Sun has removed Section 13 and Exhibit A from the MPL 1.1. These were the parts that allowed the license to be GPL-compatible. So the CDDL is not GPL-compatible. In addition, that cannot be fixed easily because the CDDL 1.0 does not allow the work to b

            • so it's still a free software license? ask RMS to fix the GPL then, after all, _that_ can be changed, right?

              (oh, and ask linus to adopt gpl3 for his code then, as he dropped the "or later" option)

      • Re:GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:48AM (#11478915)
        You got it the wrong way around, they ARE compatable with the GPL, but the GPL isnt compatable with them (IE you can take BSDLed code and use it in a GPL codebase, but you cant take GPLed code and use it in a BSDL codebase).
        • Actually, I think you can, at least for your own use. You just can't release the end result unless that end result is also released under the GPL.
          • That's nitpicking. In that case, conversely, any bit of source code you can legally get your hands on is GPL compatible, as you can mix it with your GPL code as long as you don't want to distribute it to anyone. Every single Linux user can put Sun's code into their own personal fork of Linux, as long as they don't share it with their friends.

            If I can't use code and then release it under a BSD license, it's not compatible with my BSD license.

  • Free like "Write code for us and we won't pay you" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:38AM (#11478667) Journal
    These patents can't be used in any code other than OpenSolaris.

  • Armsrace? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CAPSLOCK2000 ( 27149 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:38AM (#11478668) Homepage
    Now this is a war I could enjoy. Sun & IBM in an armsrace on who is going to free the most patents. I hope other companies don't want to be left out and start participating...

  • The important question... (Score:4, Informative)

    by term8or ( 576787 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:38AM (#11478669)
    Is whether the license gives developers in OS products a perpetual right to use the patent, or could sun take the rights away at some point stopping projects that rely on them from producing new releases?

    • Re:The important question... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gormanly ( 134067 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:05AM (#11478762)

      The answer seems to be that the license gives developers the right to make derivatives of the Open Solaris code, with permission to use these patents in the derivative works.

      All changes must be given back to Sun, and if your Open Source project doesn't use their code you don't have a license to use these patents.

      You're therefore not allowed to use the GPL for any project which uses the patents!

  • The article didn't provide a link to a list of the patents being released. I couldn't find a list on www.OpenSolaris.org either.

    This is good news, but I also wonder what Sun had been patenting. I'm sure it consists of some innovative technology patents but I wonder how many of those patents are trivial (i.e. scroll button, one click, menu system, etc). I'd like to take a look at a list of those if anyone found a link.

  • Very nice, thanks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:42AM (#11478678) Journal
    Aside from the scepticism, I do not think Sun would do this, and then have a dumb license.

    I think an IBMesque license would be offered. I would also say that wait, news is news because it is new.

    I am sure lots of work went into OpenSolaris.org and now thier opening of patens of great.

    OpenOffice was OpenOffice long before any of these opening of patent folios.

    And I have been a developer for 6 years (not long granted) without worrying much about patents. (although icnreasingly so)

    Chill all.

  • Sun may not be perfect (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:43AM (#11478682)
    and I really didn't like their take on linux at times, but I have to say overall I'm really impressed with this company.

    Though again the license not being gpl compatible (afaik) is really a sore point, Sun is making a significant contribution to the open source movement with opensourcing solaris and putting patents in the public domain.

    And also let's not forget that they in a sense gave us openoffice, a software that imho is largely responsible for making Linux a real contender for the desktop.

    So to put it briefly, thank you Sun, your efforts are really appreciated though they are of course not perfect.

  • Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by strider44 ( 650833 )
    Wait a second, does this mean we like Sun again? I'm confused.
    • I realize you're aiming for funny, but I'll answer seriously because I think that there is an important point underneath the humor.

      We don't like Sun, but we do share some common interests with Sun. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that we do like Sun, at least a little bit, but don't trust them. This pretend-opening of patents makes us like them even less, and is an example of why we don't trust them. The patents they offer only apply to their license, which isn't compatible with the GPL or BSD-st

    • No (Score:2)

      by ultrabot ( 200914 )
      Wait a second, does this mean we like Sun again? I'm confused.

      No, as stated elsewhere releasing the patents doesn't apply to Linux at all. So essentially their patent grants are worthless.

      I was just about to "forgive" Sun (regarding their SCO shenanigans). Not that Sun would care about me or my forgivings, but the idea was to essentially polish their image in the eyes of the community...

      I don't know how "Open Source" this really is in the end, because it's covered by patents and they essentially preven

      • Re:No (Score:2)

        by Znork ( 31774 )
        Sun always prefers seeming open, rather than actually being open. Open is a marketing buzzword to be used and confused as much as possible.

        They're like that salesman uncle with all the stories, likeable, but you just can trust them further than you can throw an E10K.

  • Not as good as IBM (Score:5, Informative)

    by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:45AM (#11478688) Homepage Journal
    Sun, according to thier license, reserves the right to sue if the software is released under another license. :)

    IBM opened the 500 patents it opened without restriction.

    GJC

  • Cynical... (Score:4, Funny)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <<giles.jones> <at> <zen.co.uk>> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @07:55AM (#11478724)
    1. Sun grants access to patents
    2. People use patents
    3. Sun revokes access to patents and sues people
    4. Profit!!!

  • a bright start for opensolaris (Score:3, Funny)

    by R.D.Olivaw ( 826349 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:22AM (#11478820)
    when the website is running linux [netcraft.com] :)

  • Novell is still in first place on this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by originalhack ( 142366 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:49AM (#11478916)
    While it is nice to see IBM and Sun jumping on the bandwagon and it is a really cool gesture, the real benefit of a patent portfolio is when it can be used to force another company to cross-license. If IBM (or Sun) were to take the position that any company that initates a sleazy IP attack against an OSS project may find itself defending against IBM's entire patent portfolio, that would be very useful.

    Perhaps, Novell would be willing to let IBM and Sun "copy" this [novell.com]

  • This Just in...... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ogman ( 591131 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @08:56AM (#11478944)
    The U.S. Patent Office announced today that Microsoft has applied for and been granted a patent for The Patent. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stated that the company will begin utilizing the new patent by, "snatching those 1600 patents back from the Communist Penguinistas!" Ballmer also said that the company is very pleased that this action will allow them to protect their intellectual property and, by extension, "screw Sun more than ever before." Asked if they will be charging licensing fees on every patent in the world, Ballmer laughed maniacally and launched into a rendition of the "MonkeyBoy" dance.

  • RTFF or "Just the FAQs ma'am" (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aumaden ( 598628 ) <Devon...C...Miller@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @09:45AM (#11479175) Journal
    FAQ that is, as in the Open Solaris Licensing FAQ [opensolaris.org].
  • Every now and then there is a story here on slashdot on how evil patents are and why they should be abolished. But are they really that harmful and bad?
    Can someone point out any real damages done by patents, especially software patents. Are there any evidence of companies going out of buissness because of patenting issues?
    I'd like to know.

    .haeger

  • more trickery from Sun PR (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @11:45AM (#11480491)
    Read carefully: Sun isn't opening their patent portfolio to all FOSS projects, only to their own pet FOSS projects. It looks like, for example, Linux does not fall under that grant and Sun can claim patent infringement by Linux at any time.

    Altogether, this is another underhanded attempt by Sun to drum up support for their failing kernel and OS efforts and represents, if anything, a threat to Linux.

    Don't trust Sun: these guys are desparate and hence dangerous. If they release stuff under an approved OSI license, you can use it (eg OOo). Anything else from Sun is a Trojan horse and a ticking time bomb (eg Java), both for FOSS and for commercial customers.
  • With eroding marketshare and hard competition from Linux Sun have formulated a decent plan to hold their position. They are transitioning from a product company to a services based one. You get the OS for free now, and they make their money further up the stack. All very clever if you ask me. Check out Novell for a company with a similar fight-back plan.

    The other part to this is that you will be able to develop open source apps for Solaris and even variants of Solaris e.g. cut down version for portable devi

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close