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 324806
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Not news
by -oblio- on Mon 28th Jul 2008 19:00 UTC 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[5]: Not news
by danieldk on Mon 28th Jul 2008 20:35 in reply to "RE[4]: Not news"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

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?


I guess you are referring to OpenSolaris? Of course, they have done it to avoid integration of Linux ZFS and DTrace in Linux. If a compatible license had been used, they would have lost two of their major selling points compared to Linux. That's competition. Sun is a company that has a responsibility to their shareholders, they can't just give away their competitive advantage.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Not news
by kaiwai on Mon 28th Jul 2008 21:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Not news"
kaiwai 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?


Why should they go GPL. GPL is a proprietary licence in nature where by it can seem to suck in any code it wants but unless you project is GPL2, you can't take anything back from it. It is a one way process that it just as vile and disgusting as when proprietary vendors take BSD source code and don't provide patches or improvements back.

If you actually *TOOK* the time and read FSF, there is a bloody good reason why Stallman doesn't call software licensed under the GPL as 'open source'. May I suggest you actually *READ* some literature on the matter instead of spouting the usual pro-GPL jingoisms without the slightest understanding of the background.

I don't see anything wrong with the CDDL; the licence that IS out of step is the GPL2; where code sharing in the the GPL is a one way street, it is like a leech on the opensource community where rather than sharing code with other projects, it deliberately creates walls to stop enhancements made in BSD-like code imported into a GPL project from making its way back to the original BSD-like licensed project.

I know I'm going to lose points but damn it all, I am sick and tired of the same rhetoric being spewed by GPL/GNU/Linux fanboys whose only exposure to the opensource world is in the last 5 years, and still hold the idea that Microsoft created the PC revolution. The stench of stupidity in this forum some days is almost unbearable.

Edited 2008-07-28 21:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Not news
by KAMiKAZOW on Mon 28th Jul 2008 22:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Not news"
KAMiKAZOW 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?

From a legal standpoint, GPLv3 is way better. It clarifies some rules in better detail and it is modelled after international copyright laws, not just early 1990s U.S. copyright law.
The GPLv3 is very compatible with v2. By default, every GPL version contains the "or any later version" clause. Only very few FOSS projects (*cough* Linux *cough*) do not contain the "any later version" clause but that's mostly due personal conflicts with certain FSF members (Torvalds vs. Stallman).

Reply Parent Score: 5

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

RE[5]: Not news
by calc on Thu 31st Jul 2008 23:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Not news"
calc Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


Sun has an estimated 35,000 employees from what I have read elsewhere and Canonical has around 180 employees. Sun is roughly 200x the size of Canonical. That is couting all departments, and Canonical's Ubuntu team has only roughly 50 employees, so yea Canonical might not be doing a lot in the community compared to other companies, which happen to be hundreds of times its size, but it is contributing in various areas.

Reply Parent Score: 1