To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Or compare it with the FSF: they also require copyright assignment in the GNU projects, but it's a foundation not a company that aims to money, and they don't use the copryright assignment to make propietary versions out of it (IOW: people knows they can trust the FSF) "
Yeah, but at this point Sun is pretty commited to FOSS. It's pretty hard to doubt their commitment, considering they Open Sourced software worth millions of dollars of work hours (Java, Open Office, Solaris, ...). Commercial != bad 
Commercial != bad
Sure. And I've even add "closed source != bad", which is probably what you meant.
It's unfairness what is bad, really bad. Everyone can release open-source commercial versions, but only Sun is allowed to release closed-source commercial versions.
Edited 2008-07-28 19:07 UTC
Sure, but the question is: is-it truly open when you use a license incompatible with the majority of open source software which are GPLv2?
Imagine if each company was using its own "opensource" license incompatible with every other licenses, this wouldn't be a very good situation..
Sun has made a lot for open-source, yes, but playing the license fragmentation game is truly dangerous, the FSF does the same thing with the GPLv3 which wasn't really needed IMHO.
The recent exception is the AGPL which defines a framework for a different kind of collaboration for server software: this one is interesting..
How is it hard to doubt their commitment? The can close it off at any time, incorporating the work the OSS developers have contributed.
Their commitment to FOSS is in line with Canonical's, in which they talk a big game and try to leverage the community, but in the end they're not really investing anything to advance it beyond their own self interest.
As is their right, and the community can still benefit. But let's not make them out to be more than they are. Unless they're willing to commit ownership to the community and rely on a community-driven effort for development, a la the linux kernel or something similar, they're simply hedging their bets.
Don't get me wrong, I've always applauded Sun for taking the brave move towards opening their code. But their current view towards community development, Java GPL2 excepted, is little different than Microsoft's view towards community development with the MSL. Shared source isn't necessarily OSS.





Member since:
2005-07-08
Do not forget that the Free Software Foundation also requires copyright assignment.
I didn't not forget it.
Or compare it with the FSF: they also require copyright assignment in the GNU projects, but it's a foundation not a company that aims to money, and they don't use the copryright assignment to make propietary versions out of it (IOW: people knows they can trust the FSF)