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 433414
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 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Shame for great technology"
gnufreex
Member since:
2010-05-06

You are not familiar with fact that open source can generate profits, it does so for Red Hat and many others. Even for Oracle.

If Sun decided to opensource Solaris, they should have done it properly, or not do it. OpenSolaris was failed experiment because they didn't do it properly. And even though they didn't do it properly, even though Sun didn't take advantage of all benefits of open source (they took advantage of free redistribution and bug reports by non paying users, but didn't expand development community and accelerated development) , OpenSolaris managed to stop decline of Solaris for certain period of time. At least until financial crisis hit.

If they didn't open source it, it would be dead OS by now, and Sun would be even cheaper buy for Oracle.

If they opensourced it under GPLv3, it would certainly helped to reduce development costs and increase pace of innovation. But it might not have helped to save company because Sun lost money on hardware, and software support revenue couldn't supplant that. You could argue that writing on the wall was since year 2000. But at least in that case OpenSolaris would live on.

This way, both Sun and OpenSolaris are dead.

Reply Parent Score: 2

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


If they opensourced it under GPLv3, it would certainly helped to reduce development costs and increase pace of innovation. But it might not have helped to save company because Sun lost money on hardware, and software support revenue couldn't supplant that. You could argue that writing on the wall was since year 2000. But at least in that case OpenSolaris would live on.


How does the gpl increase the pace of innovation..?

And if it were the case why would we see gpl licensed "copies" of Sun technology?

Reply Parent Score: 2

gtirloni Member since:
2009-07-17

I totally agree that they have should done it properly or not at all. The way things are, OpenSolaris should drop the "Open" from its name. It's a shame.

CDDL, GPL, BSD... all licenses would work if Sun really had the intention of creating a healthy open source project but they want to hold their feet in the proprietary world and created this mess.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

You are not familiar with fact that open source can generate profits,

No, under normal circumstances it can't. Every company can't be Red Hat and package a software, that was written mostly by someone else. I see you're a gnu fundamentalist and you won't believe me, so just think about what percentage of successful software is open source. Oracle DB? WebSphere? DB2? Anything from Microsoft?

If Sun decided to opensource Solaris, they should have done it properly, or not do it.

Yes, they shouldn't have done it, because it made them fail in the market. And they shouldn't have made incompetent Jonathan a CEO in the first place.

If they didn't open source it, it would be dead OS by now, and Sun would be even cheaper buy for Oracle. Also, I'm high as a kite.

Had to fix that one for you.

If they opensourced it under GPLv3, it would certainly helped to reduce development costs and increase pace of innovation.

What would really happen is, that Linux would reap all the great functionality and leave it out in the cold, just like they did to the BSDs.

Reply Parent Score: 2