Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Jul 2010 16:48 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris This morning, at the OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) meeting, the following was proposed and unanimously resolved: "The OGB is keen to promote the uptake and open development of OpenSolaris and to work on behalf of the community with Oracle, as such the OGB needs Oracle to appoint a liaison by August 16, 2010, who has the the authority to talk about the future of OpenSolaris and its interaction with the OpenSolaris community otherwise the OGB will take action at the August 23 meeting to trigger the clause in the OGB charter that will return control of the community to Oracle."
Thread beginning with comment 433411
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Shame for great technology
by gnufreex on Tue 13th Jul 2010 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame for great technology"
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

Ok, that too. Control freakishness of Sun had a play there, but if license was GPL (or at least GPL-compatible, like BSD) then a lot of people would get interested in technology, community would get bigger and Oracle would have two choices: keep OpenSolaris going, or let it go and watch people fork it. GPL forces dictatorship to be benevolent.

So Sun used "phuck you Linux" license and even sent their evangelists to talk how CDDL is "more Free" than GPL. That created bad faith and lot of people refused even to look at OpenSolaris code. For example, look what Linux kernel developers said when OpenSolaris was opensourced. Nobody was going to look at it.

Another example, Debian guys thought about making Debian GNU/sunos - SunOS kernel with GNU user-land - but when they read CDDL, they decided to go with FreeBSD kernel and make Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port. If Debian GNU/Sunos was created, that would lead to lots of bug-fixes and QA for sunos kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

You are asserting that if OpenSolaris was released under GPL by Sun, it would have automatically gained a diverse community but that fails in the face of reality. Take a look at MySQL which is a project under the GPL license managed by Sun which had similar issues around lack of community and worries about control of Oracle during the Sun acquisition. License alone does not guarantee any community at all. It might have helped or hindered. One cannot say for sure especially since Sun had to mix proprietary code it had licensed from third party folks in OpenSolaris which has yet to be replaced.

Debian's reading of CDDL is considered incorrect by FSF which considers certain components to fall under the system exception of GPL and hence not incompatible for the purposes of a port. So that is not a compelling example of a problem.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Xender Member since:
2006-06-28

I'm with you about GPL is not the panacea. Anyway I think is a better option than CDDL.
Look at Mysql, it was possible to create the fork MariaDB.

Reply Parent Score: 0

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

MySQL have community, and if Oracle tries to kill MySQL, forks will take over. There are already few forks like MariaDB, Drizzle, XtraDB... but nobody takes notice of those because Oracle is currently behaving ok and not trying to kill MySQL. As I said, GPL makes dictatorship to be benevolent, and if dictator is harmful to the project, then project will fork away.

Also, I don't think that copyright assignment policy is bad by design, but some companies are abusing it.

As for Debian interpretation of CDDL..? What issue are you implying? One with cdrtools, or one with sunos port?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Ok, that too. Control freakishness of Sun had a play there, but if license was GPL (or at least GPL-compatible, like BSD) then a lot of people would get interested in technology, community would get bigger and Oracle would have two choices: keep OpenSolaris going, or let it go and watch people fork it.


There's plenty of GPL OSs out there that are struggling.
Simply stating that a GPL licence would attract a community is somewhat deluded. Particularly when all that would likely happen would be the popular technologies in OpenSolaris (ZFS, dtrace, etc) would have been gutted and implemented in Linux.

So as things stand, the CDDL licence has potentially brought people to Solaris who were interested in technology and weren't loyal to a platform. And those that refused to move because of loyalties wouldn't have moved anyway.


So Sun used "phuck you Linux" license and even sent their evangelists to talk how CDDL is "more Free" than GPL. That created bad faith and lot of people refused even to look at OpenSolaris code. For example, look what Linux kernel developers said when OpenSolaris was opensourced. Nobody was going to look at it.

But those kind of developers wouldn't have looked at OpenSolaris anyway.
Linux fanboys will stick with Linux. Sun knew this, so they wanted to protect their assets rather than lose their biggest bargaining chips to a developers that are unlikely to switch platforms regardless.



Another example, Debian guys thought about making Debian GNU/sunos - SunOS kernel with GNU user-land - but when they read CDDL, they decided to go with FreeBSD kernel and make Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port. If Debian GNU/Sunos was created, that would lead to lots of bug-fixes and QA for sunos kernel.

A GNU/SunOS does exist. In fact NexentaOS has been around for a few years now and have been well reported on technology sites like this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

For example, look what Linux kernel developers said when OpenSolaris was opensourced. Nobody was going to look at it.

Another example, Debian guys thought about making Debian GNU/sunos - SunOS kernel with GNU user-land - but when they read CDDL, they decided to go with FreeBSD kernel and make Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port.


And yet, that's exactly what the Nexenta folks did. Took the OSol kernel, put the Ubuntu userland on top, and released it to the public.

Just because one group of devs decided it wasn't worth the effort doesn't mean the entire world did.

Reply Parent Score: 6

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

They advertise like they did it, but they in fact didn't.

You see, Nexenta is in fact OpenSolaris with GNOME and dpkg. It still uses sun libc as oposed to planed Debian port which would use glibc and all GNU userland except Linux kernel, which would be replaced with SunOS. Thet would help in getting more potable glibc but SunOS kernel would get lot of benefits too. If fact, Solaris could use glibc because is superior library. It would be real gain for both. Note that debian people are contributing both to Linux and now BSD kernels, they would do it for SunOS too.

This way, Nexenta just uses OpenSolaris and repackages things to .deb. They do no kernel hacking just repackage things. They are no use for Oracle as they are not contributing, just leaching. No wonder Larry wants them dead.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Ok, that too. Control freakishness of Sun had a play there, but if license was GPL (or at least GPL-compatible, like BSD) then a lot of people would get interested in technology, community would get bigger and Oracle would have two choices: keep OpenSolaris going, or let it go and watch people fork it. GPL forces dictatorship to be benevolent.


Go look through SourceForge projects if you think that the GPL will magically attract developers. It's mostly a graveyard.

I think a bigger problem with OpenSolaris is that they never made a good case for switching from Linux or FreeBSD. Linux has better hardware support, FreeBSD has ZFS and Dtrace. Why take the time to move your servers to OpenSolaris? There was never a good answer.

Reply Parent Score: 2