'OpenSolaris Still Has Some Linux Copying to Do'
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jun 2008 21:56 UTC
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris The Register has reviewed OpenSolaris, and concludes: "Sun has made good on its promise to deliver OpenSolaris, the company's Unix-based answer to Linux, with a company-supported, commercial update arriving in mid-May. Although far from a complete product, the latest OpenSolaris is impressive and in the long run could prove a viable alternative to Linux."
E-mail Print r 5   34 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/fbo
Thread beginning with comment 318502
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: IMHO
by elsewhere on Sun 15th Jun 2008 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: IMHO"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

You put both your copyright and a Sun copyright too. Again, what is horrifying about that? you still own your code whilst 'donating' the code to the 'community'. Which sorry to repeat it, again, leaves me confused as to the purpose of the above - because it makes no logical sense whining over something as trivial as it.


Yes, well I suppose that some people that actually choose to contribute time and effort for an OSS project may take exception to granting a corporate entity free right to take ownership of their code and re-license it at will. Which is what Sun reserves the right to do, a fact that you've glossed over.

You're the one that dragged the comparison to linux into this, which is why I responded. The linux kernel doesn't require contributors to assign copyright to Linus or anyone else. It collectively belongs to everyone that contributes code, not a single entity.

As for HP, IBM and so forth; it started from the ground level, and the ground level got into Linux because it was a cheap, good enough UNIX clone - it had nothing to do with any so-called 'community aspirations'.


Totally side-stepping my point. I don't disagree with this statement, and nor will I even pretend that companies like HP and IBM don't have commercial interests in mind with their contributions to linux.

I suspect you're dismissing "community aspirations" as some sort of warm-and-fuzzy hug-fest, which isn't at all what I was implying. When I refer to community, I'm referring to the pool of developers, since that is what OSS projects rely on for sustenance.

Linux is driven by commercial development. It's the IBMs and HPs of the world that have poured resources into it, and helped it attain it's current level of capability. And one of the primary reasons they do so is because of the balanced "co-opetition" that the linux OSS development model provides.

IBM can donate code and pour development resources into linux knowing full well that if HP decides to build upon that code and improve it, they can still benefit from it since the code will always remain open. No single individual or organization "owns" linux, and therefore no single individual or organization can arbitrarily decide at some point that linux has progressed to the point where they choose to close it off and proprietarize it.

Sun, on the other hand, requires code contributors to hand over copyright in order to reserve the right to license at will. Sure, the contributor still retains their own copyright over that code, but the contributor runs the risk of losing future benefit from improvements made to their own code. Not to say that Sun will do that, but whether they will or not is irrelevant, the point is that they can.

And that will prevent openSolaris from receiving the major third-party commercial contributions that linux has received.

Again, based on what? it seems to be that your arguing semantics without actually explaining why it is important. Yes, you retain copyright whilst assigning copyright to another person, what is wrong with that? lets say you contribute some code, substantial amount. In 5 years time you're hit by a steam roller and it just so happens the project wishes to relicence to Widget version 2.0 - the whole project grinds to a halt because obviously you can't vote one way or another from beyond the grave.


I'm arguing semantics? You've implied that openSolaris will somehow catch up to linux now that it has been opened, and that it just needs time. That's an incredibly simplistic viewpoint that utterly overlooks the various factors that went into linux development over the years.

Sun doesn't want to lose control of their crown jewels. There's nothing wrong with that, nor am I advocating that they should. It's their choice to make.

But as long as they insist on retaining tight ownership of the project, it is not really an "open" project. It falls somewhere in between Microsoft's "look but don't touch" shared source model, and the linux de-centralized OSS development model. Nothing wrong with that.

Seriously, just throwing source code on the web for all to see and use doesn't inherently equate to a successful OSS development model. Like I said, Sun took a big step just by opening the code in the first place, and I applaud them for it, but they won't gain the type of community that linux has obtained, unless they're willing to sacrifice control in order to gain developer mind-share.

In other words, the more control they try to exert over an OSS project, the narrower the field of individuals or organizations to draw support from.

It's Sun's choice, certainly.

I'm just pointing out that you're equating openSolaris to linux in terms of building community, when they're built upon completely different development models. You're dismissing the requirement to hand over ownership of code, I'm of the opinion that it is a major differentiator.

Only time will tell.

Reply Parent Score: 5