Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Nov 2007 19:49 UTC
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris Erstwhile bitter rivals Dell and Sun Microsystems are set to announce that Sun's Solaris and OpenSolaris operating systems will be supported in all of Dell's servers. Dell founder and CEO Michael Dell and Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz plan to make the announcement during a joint appearance at the Oracle OpenWorld 2007 conference today.
Thread beginning with comment 284494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

though you got modded down, i think there is some truth to your subject line. Most people that are into open source software are really just fans of certain open source projects, and prefer open source for the rest of their stuff. Every project has it's "us versus the world" users, and the reason you come across a lot of linux zealots like this is largely because of it's large user/developer base. Most people will see this as a win for open source, despite what some vocal fanatics say.

I'm not saying their aren't people that are just purely into open source, and only use open source. It's just that a majority of the open source world is not made up of these people

Reply Parent Score: 2

butters Member since:

The only pragmatic argument against OpenSolaris from a Linux perspective is license fragmentation. Otherwise it's great. However, this is a big problem, and it will become more annoying for both communities, not to mention ISV/IHVs, as time goes on.

To use a political analogy... Imagine a young democracy devoid of major political parties where politicians advance their own platforms independently. Then, someone comes up with the bright idea of forming a broad alliance to advance and protect certain ideals, convinced that, united, their coalition will one day dominate the national politics.

Nobody spoke up and asked, "What if, at some point in the future, somebody starts a second party that's mostly like our's, but which differs on some contentious wedge issues? Wouldn't that be bad for everybody?"

So now we have a two-party system for free software platforms (along with some independent libertarians that advocate the BSD), and each party has a binding pact not to ever cooperate with the other. It's a sad state of affairs, and pointing fingers isn't going to help. Both sides are partially at fault, the general principle of copyleft is at fault, and a copyright system that wasn't designed for organic, collaborative development is especially at fault.

We need a compromise. How about this: Let's agree to relicense both Linux (painstaking as it would be) and OpenSolaris under the LGPLv3. The projects would also have to agree on whether or not to eliminate the anti-Tivoization language. Linux would be strictly LGPLv3-only, and while all of OpenSolaris to which Sun owns the copyright would be LGPLv3, third parties would have the option of linking arbitrarily-licensed source files.

To enforce this policy, the Linux kernel project would designate a very small portion of the kernel that's vital to Linux but highly unlikely to be useful to other projects as a copyleft "seed". They would license this seed under the GPLv3 with an explicit LGPLv3 linking exception. Then nobody would be able to distribute a Linux kernel linked with non-LGPLv3 code.

This empowers bidirectional code sharing between the projects while satisfying much of their respective licensing requirements. From Sun's perspective, the LGPLv3 is very similar to the CDDL. Linux could preserve the incentive for third parties to contribute free software, and while mixed-source projects could merge LGPLv3 code from Linux, file-granular reciprocity would still be required.

Just an idea... I'm glad that OpenSolaris brings more competition and visibility to free software, but the whole idea behind free software is that competition and collaboration aren't mutually exclusive. We can share to exploit our common interests without compromising our mutual ability to differentiate. Linux and OpenSolaris have different visions, and the ability to share code can't change that.

Reply Parent Score: 6

KenJackson Member since:

We need a compromise. How about this: Let's agree to relicense both Linux (painstaking as it would be) and OpenSolaris under the LGPLv3.

Well I would vote for it, but emotions run so high in this area that you almost qualify as a troll for suggesting it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dude Member since:

...but the whole idea behind free software is that competition and collaboration aren't mutually exclusive.

Honestly, if that was true, why isn't everything BSD/public domain? The whole point of open source is that you are not a slave to the software maker's will. You have the source code, you can fix bugs, add features, and fork if necessary. I mean, the GPL isn't exactly friendly when it comes to competition and collaboration with other licenses such as BSD style licenses.

Your political analogy is flawed. Open source isn't a democracy. What makes more sense is that there are three or four rouge countries run by dictators. These countries have similar ideas, and would all benefit from trade agreements with each other. Two of these rogue nations have clauses in their trade agreements that say if you use there products in anything, you must give all the information as to how to make it back to them, so they can trade it more. The beauty of this is that they will give you their products for free. The down side is that you have to give your products away for free. These are the nations of CDDL and GPL. Another nation is BSD, they just give you stuff, tell you to give credit where credit is due, and ask you kindly to give back.

the nations of CDDL and GPL are basically the same. The difference between them is that CDDL, do to past relations, a desire to keep it's own culture/products, and the want to be able to give code back to it's sister nation (solaris), does not want to merge with GPL to make a bigger nation. Both sides feel that they should merge, but they can't agree on merging into CDDL or GPL. Mean while BSD thinks that they are both lame because their trade agreements make it impossible for them to ever get anything useful back from these nations.

In the end, these nations would be much more powerful if the combined into one nation, but in doing so it would mean that ideals would have to be compromised. This necessary corruption is seen as distasteful on all sides, because they already know they are right and the others are wrong. In the end they all settle on an alliance to try to fend off the attacks and trade blockades from the rest of the world.

Reply Parent Score: 2