Linked by brynet on Thu 15th Jul 2010 16:55 UTC
QNX As of April 2010, a silent change was made on Foundry27, users with a myQNX account could no longer checkout/update their copies of the QNX SVN repositories and a vague Wiki page was created "detailing" some licencing clarifications.
Thread beginning with comment 433707
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The Obvious:
by aliquis on Fri 16th Jul 2010 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Obvious:"
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

I'm sick of hearing people post the same erroneous view.

OpenSolaris IS licence under a proper open source licence. It can be forked at any time. Just because the licence isn't Linux compatible, it doesn't mean it isn't true open source (as evident by the fact that FreeBSD has been able to implement ZFS)

OpenSolaris' problem is that most if the developers are Oracle. So if Oracle cease development on OpenSolaris, there may not be enough of a community to fork the project. But that would still be true if the licence was BSD or GPL (possibly worse as many Linux developers would have ported the best features of Solaris to Linux and then left Oracles OS to die - at least at with the current licence, there's an incentive to fork OpenSolaris).
My comment hadn't got anything to do with Solaris being open-source or not.

Parent to my post mentioned:
"anyone who has used any sorts of alternative operating systems knows better than to depend on their systems being around long term, unless they are released under a true open source license."
"SkyOS, BeOS, QNX, etc, etc..."


SkyOS was never open-source, BeOS wasn't either, QNX don't seem to have been "truly" open-source, and so on.

He cares about losing the whole OS and not being able to depend on it longer. He don't care about the open-source state. Except if it's open-source you can fork it even if the company behinds goes belly up and hence continue using it.

I haven't talked about licensing at all.

Oracle seem to kill of OpenSolaris and eventually will lose more and more Solaris business and in the end just run it as part of their database business. As in you buy a server from Oracle with an OS which run Oracle well and Oracle DB on top. And that's it.

But that would still be true if the licence was BSD or GPL
Yes, so stop speaking out of your arse. I haven't talked about licensing, I talked about Solaris. And Oracle mess it up even more. Solaris without Sun/Oracle behind it would probably die off.


Your GPL hate rather makes a point for that if it had been released under GPL if Solaris died / Oracle f--ked up then atleast some of the good parts could had ended up in Linux for people to switch to. But I don't see where that would had made market sense for Oracle or Sun ... "It's good because then people can leave us!" ...

Edited 2010-07-16 16:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: The Obvious:
by vivainio on Fri 16th Jul 2010 21:10 in reply to "RE[3]: The Obvious:"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Your GPL hate rather makes a point for that if it had been released under GPL if Solaris died / Oracle f--ked up then atleast some of the good parts could had ended up in Linux for people to switch to.


I don't think anything of value remains.

Btrfs and utrace/systemtap are already the more "linuxy" ways of doing what was considered valuable in Solaris before (zfs/dtrace). I suppose dtrace was deeply intertwined with the os, and zfs reinvents the whole FS stack from top to bottom.

So basically we don't need to fret about the licensing decision anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: The Obvious:
by Laurence on Sun 18th Jul 2010 21:01 in reply to "RE[3]: The Obvious:"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You are so wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

He cares about losing the whole OS and not being able to depend on it longer. He don't care about the open-source state. Except if it's open-source you can fork it even if the company behinds goes belly up and hence continue using it.

You can fork OpenSolaris. I've already stated this.
Did you just completely ignore my post?


Your GPL hate

Grow up.

I don't hate GPL. Quite the opposite in fact - 90% computers I manage run Linux as the main OS and ArchLinux is my primary desktop OS. I just don't believe that GPL the only licence worth considering. In fact I that kind of attitude is little different to OS fanboyism.

So if I come across as a GPL hater, then that's only because you're so blinkered to other opinions outside of GPL.

Edited 2010-07-18 21:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: The Obvious:
by aliquis on Mon 19th Jul 2010 20:59 in reply to "RE[4]: The Obvious:"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

You can fork OpenSolaris.

Grow up.

ArchLinux
You can, but no-one is likely to give a shit about it.

Get a life.

ArchLinux sucked balls the only time I tried it. Waay overhyped POS. Atleast at that date.

Reply Parent Score: 2