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 324826
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not news
by renox on Mon 28th Jul 2008 20:22 UTC 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[6]: Not news
by chekr on Tue 29th Jul 2008 01:26 in reply to "RE[5]: Not news"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

+1 for you Matt.

While I wouldn't have put it in those words exactly I agree with your sentiments...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Not news
by shapeshifter on Tue 29th Jul 2008 07:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Not news"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Did your Macbook overheat and kill the hard drive or something?
Foaming at the mouth will not fix it. Gotta take it to the Mac store and make a sacrifice to his holiness Steve J. (a few hundred dollars and a new iPod should do).
Lol

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[6]: Not news
by elsewhere on Tue 29th Jul 2008 04:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Not news"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

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).


OMFG, people are still spewing this? The GPL *never* contained an "or later" clause. It was contained in the boilerplate as a *recommendation*. Copyright holders still had to specifically state the "or later" clause, which very many didn't. This has been discussed and debated ad nauseum, please visit the interwebs a little more often to keep up to date.

Reply Parent Score: 3