Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Sep 2005 09:10 UTC, submitted by george
FreeBSD One of the most useful tidbits from the basket of code released into the public domain this year by Sun Microsystems is likely to make it to the FreeBSD platform. DTrace is currently being ported to FreeBSD by Devon O'Dell, a FreeBSD developer working for OffMyServer, a US-based vendor which sells servers running BSD and Linux variants.
Order by: Score:
I wonder...
by morgoth on Thu 8th Sep 2005 10:15 UTC
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, hopefully it'll be ported to Linux!

Dave

Reply Score: 0

RE: I wonder...
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 12:54 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Redhat and IBM are working on a similar project which is termed

SystemTap

The SystemTap project aims to produce a Linux tool that lets application developers and system administrators take a deeper look into a running kernel. We aim to exploit the capability of a fully open-source Linux target to go beyond performance measurements, and perhaps even serve as a programmable debugger.

The above is verbatim from the fedora page.
But as someone has pointed out please don't go thru the same old grind of license discussion.

Reply Score: 2

"released into the public domain"??
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 10:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Thom you know better than that. Copyrighted code is not public domain.

Reply Score: 0

saxiyn Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, it's ZDNet which should know better. OSNews just quoted the "summary".

Reply Score: 2

Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, it's ZDNet which should know better. OSNews just quoted the "summary".

Except ZDNet doesn't know better, and OSNews editors do. Let's just hope this doesn't wake up the license zealots.

More on-topic, I hope more Solaris technologies get ported and used on different platforms like this. Maybe this will encourage other companies to follow suit.

Reply Score: 1

good
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 10:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's good to see these promising and touted technologies become widespread, and not just vendor-lockin-candy for administrators.

Reply Score: 1

v CDDL
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 10:54 UTC
RE: CDDL
by bact on Thu 8th Sep 2005 11:27 UTC in reply to "CDDL"
bact Member since:
2005-07-06

So, why there're still Apache, MIT, and MPL-variant licenses ? Or, essentially, may be more direct to your point, just only one grand universal license ?
As BSD people put their code in BSD license, and not GPL. Why can't Sun guys put their code in CDDL (or anything) ?

----

Back to the topic, DTrace port, that's a good news.
The admin skills, tips n techniques and many DTrace scripts can be further exchange in a broader community.

Reply Score: 1

RE: CDDL
by orestes on Thu 8th Sep 2005 11:46 UTC in reply to "CDDL"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

The CDDL is actually a very nice license. My only issue with it thus far is the use of the phrase "intellectual property".

Reply Score: 1

RE: CDDL
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 12:22 UTC in reply to "CDDL"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> I donít see why Sun couldnít have been nicer to its
> neighbors and license OpenSolaris either under the
> GPL or under the BSD license.

Simple answer: Because it's their property and because they can. And because they don't like the GPL, which I understand and which they don't need to justify because it's their property and nobody else's.

> My only issue with it thus far is the use of the
> phrase "intellectual property".

Why? Because of the wording? That's not sensible. Intellectual property is a reality, regardless of how you call it. $GPLware is the intellectual property of $GPLware's author, period. Call it whatever you like and let others call it what it is.

Another question: Why do discussions about Sun's Free Software projects always end in a licensing discussion instead of technical things? Are there any FSF lobbyists or even GNU zealots among us?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: CDDL
by orestes on Thu 8th Sep 2005 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: CDDL"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Why? Because of the wording? That's not sensible.

Because it perputuates the concept that the rights granted by copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret laws are somehow tied to those given by laws governing physical property.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: CDDL
by John Nilsson on Thu 8th Sep 2005 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CDDL"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to mention that many illegal acts involving physical property is criminal which is not the case regarding "intelecrual property".

Reply Score: 1

Sun's License
by saterdaies on Thu 8th Sep 2005 12:49 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

Part of the reason that Sun created its CDDL was that it didn't want some of the restrictions of the GPL. For example, the GPL doesn't allow you to link non-GPL code against GPL'd code. So, if Sun had gone with an FSF license, it probably would have been the LGPL.

But there are some flaws in the FSF licenses. For example, the GPL doesn't protect against patents. If I create a GPL program and patent parts of it and then you use that program, I can sue you for patent violation. The CDDL makes sure that all patents used by the program and owned by one of the programs contributers are granted royalty-free.

Part of this is simply the age of the GPL. Most people expect the GPL version 3 to address a lot of the concerns that have arose since version 2.

As for DTrace getting into FreeBSD, it's really easy to include even proprietary code in a BSD-licensed system because there is no prohibition against it. Although Linus has decided that proprietary things in the kernel are OK by him (because he doesn't want to go without binary-only drivers), it is a violation of the GPL.

The FSF people have always said how superior their license is to the BSD-license because it required people to give back. Maybe now we can see how the BSD license allows more flxibility in what code you can pull in.

I also have to point out that Sun has open-sourced a major product and yet it isn't enough for those complaining who with it were GPL'd. Plus, other than the holes in the GPL that the CDDL closes (such as patents), it is LESS restrictive - it is LGPL-like. Not to mention that the GPL version 3 could very well be compatible with the CDDL since it is expected to address the issues that the CDDL addressed.

Could people just stop roasting Sun over the license?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sun's License
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 13:03 UTC in reply to "Sun's License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"
But there are some flaws in the FSF licenses. For example, the GPL doesn't protect against patents. If I create a GPL program and patent parts of it and then you use that program, I can sue you for patent violation."

Incorrect. Do read the GPL license

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Preamble: " Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."



License:" For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

See the claus 7 of a detailed treatment of this. You need a explicit patent grant compatible with GPL to distribute any software that is patented and under the GPL license

License:

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sun's License
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 13:08 UTC in reply to "Sun's License"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Linux kernel is GPL version 2 only, and this will not change. Most program are GPL-ed version 2 and later - there will be not problem with GPL version 3

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Sun's License
by morgoth on Thu 8th Sep 2005 21:24 UTC in reply to "Sun's License"
RE[2]: Sun's License
by John Nilsson on Thu 8th Sep 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Sun's License"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Not because I'm biased in the question, but I just hate illogical arguments.


Of course not. They want to be able to do what they want with the code, and not always have to open it up. The GPL stops them from doing this, and as a business, they don't want to really share with the community, well at least, not true sharing.

If they own the code they aren't required to have a license agreement to do what they want...


That's a rather one eyed comment there. The BSD license is notorious for allowing anyone, to do to anything, whatever they want, without consideration for the original code/coder. Take open software, and alter it and close it for a profit. That's not true open source. Look at the definition of open source - the src code is open - for all to see. Tell me, in some closed BSD src code that proprietary companies have - can you see the src code? I bet that's a big NO. Ergo, it's not open source. This is such a simple thing to see, and to demonstrate, but we have the BSD luddites clinging to their beloved license.

You say that closed source derived from open source isn't open source. Ture, you are quite correct. But the code that is licensed with a BSD license is still open source. Ergo, if code is availible with a BSD license it is open source.


And it is a superior license. Period.

This is just a childish attitude. Without context and peremiters defining a test it is impossible to rate something as superior to something else. You will come to realize this as you grow older. Things are just diffrent.


It hasn't open sourced it. It's pretended it has, but with the CDDL or BSD licenses, it can easily retract whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and do what it likes to that previously "open sourced" code. See my definition of open source above. How about we settle this and call it POS - pretend open source?

If you are goind to continue posting on this subject, I suggest that you do some reading up on immaterial law. You can't "revoke" a license. If you are granted a license you are entitled to exercise those rights within the perimiters of the license.

As owners of the copyright thay are free to license derivative works in any manner they choose, including not at all, no matter what license they has given you regarding a previous release.


No. I do no like it, and I don't have to like it. We have BSD lovers bashing the GPL on osnews.com ad infinitum, and that seems to be ok. But to bash the BSD license is a big no no. Amazing, the amount of hypocrites on osnews.com.

Please dont lable me a "BSD lover". The truth is that I don't give a damn. Your logic and knowledge is simply flawed, thats all.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Sun's License
by morgoth on Fri 9th Sep 2005 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sun's License"
RE[4]: Sun's License
by John Nilsson on Fri 9th Sep 2005 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sun's License"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

My argument against yours was:

1. A non BSD licensed work derived from a BSD licensed work can not represent BSD licensed works in general as it's no longer even an example of a BSD licensed work by the simple fact that it is not BSD licensed. Hence the BSD licensed work is still open source even if the derived work is not.

2. Even if you avoided it in your response. You had some technical missunderstandings regarding copyright law.

Regarding your last post:

GPL: You are only required to distribute the source of derivative work that you _distribute_. For in house development you can pretty much treat the work as a if it was public domain.
This doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of FUD about GPL out thare that scares people off.

Attitude about better: I din't say you were dishonest. I was pointing out the fact that a simple statement of somethings superiority is illogical without defining the context in which the thing is superior. My intention was to hint that booth BSD style and GPL style licenses has thier purposes and that they migh be different. Just as a F-1 car can not be superior to Humvee without context.

BSD-Lover: It wasn't my meaning to imply that you did lable me. I was making shure that you wouldn't.

Reply Score: 1

Very good start!
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 13:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The availability of Dtrace from Solaris into BSD (and hopefully Linux) is a good start!

Does anyone know if there are plans to make ports of other previously Solaris-only goodies available as well?

I for one would love to see NIS+ for Linux!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Very good start!
by McBofh on Sat 10th Sep 2005 01:49 UTC in reply to "Very good start!"
McBofh Member since:
2005-07-07

Actually, no you wouldn't want to see NIS+ for linux (or *BSD or ...). NIS+ is a complete pain to setup, administer and maintain. Ldap is the way to go for that sort of system authentication.

Reply Score: 1

License Wars
by Haicube on Thu 8th Sep 2005 14:15 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Please OSNews Editors... make a forum called "License Wars" and let all people who disrespect Suns choices and BSDs choices go flame in there instead and make it a policy that stupid License posts will get deleted.

Thank you

Reply Score: 5

This sounds great
by mendicant on Thu 8th Sep 2005 15:20 UTC
mendicant
Member since:
2005-07-12

It seems like everywhere I look I've heard comments about how great DTrace is, so to see it ported to FreeBSD really makes me happy. I do have a couple of questions about it though, simply going in line with the announcements over the last couple days.

1) Considering the fact that we are currently going through the Beta's for FreeBSD 6, I am curious how if at all a fully implemented DTrace would help the devs with tracking down and solving these problems. From my current understanding, it seems that it could be a great help with tracking down and solving the current show-stoppers. Can someone clarify this for me?

2) I have also read an article somewhere where a DTrace dev showed how easy it was to track down a memory leak in a small program. With Gnome currently going on a memory reduction kick, would a fully featured DTrace be able to help with finding these memory problems? I realize that comparing Gnome with a small application is ridiculous so I can't expect it to magically find these problems in just a few minutes, but could it help? Also, if DTrace helped to find these problems on versions ported to FreeBSD, would they easily be ported back into the main linux-based version of Gnome?

Any feedback would be appreciated because from what (admittedly little) I've read, it seems that DTrace could help on these fronts, but I'm really not 100% sure that it would.

Reply Score: 1

Correction
by Smartpatrol on Thu 8th Sep 2005 15:33 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Dtrace is not an Administrators tool its a development tool..take it from a System Administrator. Dtrace for freebsd will advance application developement at a huge pace.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Correction
by binarycrusader on Thu 8th Sep 2005 16:41 UTC in reply to "Correction"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Dtrace is not an Administrators tool its a development tool..take it from a System Administrator.

DTrace is a system administrators tool, it's great for identifying bottlenecks in a system like those caused by I/O overload in your storage devices or misbehaving applications...take it from a System Administrator.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Correction
by Smartpatrol on Thu 8th Sep 2005 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Correction"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

DTrace is a system administrators tool, it's great for identifying bottlenecks in a system like those caused by I/O overload in your storage devices or misbehaving applications...take it from a System Administrator.

I respectfully disagree. I personally do not need Dtrace to diagnose bottlenecks like you described and frankly if an applcation is "misbehaving" that is the software vendors problem to diagnose and correct. My skills are not limited to Solaris though.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Correction
by binarycrusader on Fri 9th Sep 2005 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Correction"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I respectfully disagree. I personally do not need Dtrace to diagnose bottlenecks like you described and frankly if an applcation is "misbehaving" that is the software vendors problem to diagnose and correct.

And I will have to "respectfully disagree" in that sometimes you don't have a software vendor to disagnose and correct an application. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with the application, it's just been setup wrong! As a system administrator, (since they're all human) you will make mistakes in configuration. DTrace provides a way to analyze the performance of an application so that you can setup a system for optimum performance.

Reply Score: 1

v Re: CDDL
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 15:48 UTC
RE: Re: CDDL
by the_trapper on Thu 8th Sep 2005 19:34 UTC in reply to "Re: CDDL"
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

The simple answer to your question...NIH (Not Invented Here)...

The more complex answer to your question, everyone and every software project have their own licensing needs based upon market realities, developer core beliefs, and just simple biases for and against certain licenses.

Even the GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT licenses are just a family of licenses, many projects use these licenses verbatim as intended, but many do not. It is perfectly permissable, and often necessary to grant exceptions to certain clauses of a license or to remove certain clauses of the license altogether.

It's all about using the right tool for the right job and embracing healthy competition. People don't like having just MS Windows available to them, why are they so hell bent on not having competition within OSS?

Reply Score: 1

Mirror?
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 16:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The story seems to be slashdotted.

Can anyone offer a link to a mirror/cache ?

Reply Score: 0

Why not BSDL or GPL?
by Bascule on Thu 8th Sep 2005 19:33 UTC
Bascule
Member since:
2005-07-06

BSDL: This would let Sun's competitors integrate Solaris code into their proprietary commercial products. Sun certainly doesn't want its own code being leveraged against it.

GPL: This would require that all code running in kernel mode must be GPL as well. Furthermore, it would require that Sun always release all of the source code that forms the basis of their Solaris releases under the terms of the GPL if they plan to use any modifications people have made in OpenSolaris in their commercial product.

The requirement that all code running in kernel mode must also be GPL is a problem Linux has certainly had to contend with as various manufacturers have tried to write proprietary drivers for Linux only to be shot down by Linus and others by the requirement that all such code be GPL licensed. This aspect of Linux scares away driver developers who don't wish to release their source, and consequently the community is required to support *everything* themselves, often with inadequate hardware documentation (unless they do manage to sign an NDA) and therefore producing inferior quality drivers.

Really, the CDDL isn't that different from the APSL Darwin is licensed under, but for some reason there aren't a million GPL zealots posting on every MacOS X thread about how Apple should release Darwin under the GPL.

When trying to make something as collaborative as an entire operating system, the GPL seems to me to be overly restrictive.

Reply Score: 4

openBSM for freeBSD 6
by Anonymous on Thu 8th Sep 2005 20:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

as i undertstand it - openBSD (kernel event auditing for security) based on solaris BSM is due in freeBSD 6 - however none of the pre-releases have worked under vmware so can't check it.

Reply Score: 0

Re: morgoth
by Bascule on Thu 8th Sep 2005 21:52 UTC
Bascule
Member since:
2005-07-06

It hasn't open sourced it. It's pretended it has, but with the CDDL or BSD licenses, it can easily retract whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and do what it likes to that previously "open sourced" code

People have retracted the GPL too:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6192

Honestly, the CDDL is just an MPL derivative. Do you use Firefox? Why aren't you mounting a campaign to get Firefox released under the GPL?

Oh, and of course, I expect this post to be modded down, since this is a pro BSD thread, and let's face it, BSD uses generally think that they're "l33t" and it's fun to bash Linux users (either directly or inadvertently". Snobbery is well and truly alive in the O/S world.

Oh the irony of that comment...

Reply Score: 4

I am not all that surprised
by mario on Fri 9th Sep 2005 10:41 UTC
mario
Member since:
2005-07-06

I expected that one of the *BSDs will take up DTrace. My impression has always been that the BSD people are very compatible, from a mentality point of view, with Solaris folks. The're both typically made of experienced system administrators or UNIX system programmers, that care about the bottom line more than about the ideology, development and research over talk and flaming, arguments over blind worshipping of the "icon" (be it Linus, IBM, GPL).

Interestingly enough, both Solaris and FreeBSD are developing in huge leaps these days. I was quite shocked to see how the FreeSBIe liveCD works so wonderfully. Highly recommended.

Reply Score: 1