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 324825
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ugh, Please Read The Article!
by AndrewDubya on Mon 28th Jul 2008 20:01 UTC
AndrewDubya
Member since:
2006-10-15

Honestly, the headline was a bit over the top, the interview wasn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

The developer actually complimented the Sun developers, he just admitted to wanting a more open development environment, which he _also_ said Sun attempted to do. He even stated that he's not completely against Sun requiring the copyright stuff.

Why is it so wrong to state a preference? It sounds like a lot of developers are bothered by the process of getting stuff in to OO.org. It may or may not be in Sun's best interest to try to open up a bit -- it probably depends on whether external developer goals are in line with their own.

So, as many have stated, it sounds like Novell is deciding against assigning copyright in some cases and are starting to fight back with what is essentially a fork. This will put pressure on Sun to either open up a bit, whether that's with their development model or just to state clearly what their intentions are.

In all, I think they'll probably resolve the differences, and I'm glad Novell (and Ubuntu, etc) are pushing for more code sharing in open source. Hell, I thought the KDE/Gnome stuff was much more interesting than the OO.org discussion.

Reply Score: 9

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

...He even stated that he's not completely against Sun requiring the copyright stuff....

...So, as many have stated, it sounds like Novell is deciding against assigning copyright in some cases and are starting to fight back with what is essentially a fork. This will put pressure on Sun to either open up a bit, whether that's with their development model or just to state clearly what their intentions are....


You realize that you have to assign copyright to Novell when you contribute to projects like Mono and Evolution? So it's ok for Novell to have such requirements but when Sun does it suddenly their intentions are dubious?

What Sun is doing is normal. They are a company who has a responsibility to turn a profit. They ultimately answer to their share holders. As such their intentions are very clear. They are doing it because it makes good business sense for them to do so, not because it makes some geeks feel good.

Edited 2008-07-28 21:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

AndrewDubya Member since:
2006-10-15

Nah, I wasn't attacking Sun (or Novell). I'm really impressed with what Sun has done with OpenSource. Honestly, I don't care so much about Mono (yeah, I shouldn't knock it just because it's based on MS technology) and Evolution so that's probably why it seems that way. I really hope they can work it out. I understand why a company wouldn't wanted copyright assignment, but I can see how it could turn off open source developers.

Forking any of the major projects is generally an option if devs don't trust the company or don't like the development process. I think forks suck and I think Novell and Sun can come to a reasonable agreement. I wouldn't expect Sun to back down on their copyright assignments in any way that Novell isn't willing to do the same for. Sorry for any confusion.

Edit: Oops, should have mentioned this as well: The fact that Sun has an open development model for OpenOffice kind of points to the fact that they do think having outside contributions is a benefit, which means keeping the people who assist in some way with their software efforts is part of their business model. I won't go in to possible motives against Open Source in general, because I neither believe them nor do I believe there is much evidence to suggest it's likely ;)

Edited 2008-07-28 22:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2