Linked by Tony Steidler-Dennison on Mon 28th Jul 2008 17:32 UTC, submitted by zaboing
Oracle and SUN In an interview with derStandard.at, Novell developer Michael Meeks talks mostly about Sun's lack of openness in regards to OpenOffice.org. He goes as far as stating that if Sun dropped out of OOo-development this "wouldn't be an entirely negative thing". He also goes on to talk about promoting Go-oo instead, and emphasizes the importance of breaking down the barriers between GNOME and KDE.
Thread beginning with comment 324802
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not news
by diegocg on Mon 28th Jul 2008 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Not news"
diegocg
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)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Not news
by -oblio- on Mon 28th Jul 2008 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Not news"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

"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 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Not news
by diegocg on Mon 28th Jul 2008 19:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Not news"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Not news
by renox on Mon 28th Jul 2008 20:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Not news"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

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..

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Not news
by elsewhere on Tue 29th Jul 2008 04:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Not news"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

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 ;)


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.

Reply Parent Score: 5