Linus Torvalds has some interesting comments on Sun’s CDDL License which has been submitted to OSI’s approval.
Linus Torvalds comments on Sun’s CDDL license
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So Linus believes in the GPL and that the code belongs to everybody.
Not really. He has said before that everyone gets to choose their own license and he has choosen GPL because he personally believes in the idea of sharing code. He has a analogy of science and witchcraft, where he relates sharing code as more scientific.
Jason Perlow made some really bad comments. The CDDL isn’t more restrictive or proprietary than the MPL or LGPL. The reason it is GPL-incompatible is because of what one could call a deficiency in the GPL. Namely, the CDDL ensures that you are granted a patent license if applicable with the copyright license. The GPL doesn’t give you a patent license which means that someone could GPL code that uses one of their patents and then sue you for using/distributing it because it infringes on their patent. Granted, a court would likely say that the original licenssor was acting in bad faith by GPLing software they had no intention of letting people use freely, but still.
This licence, because it is LGPL-like and not GPL-like, means that its code can be used in a larger, non-CDDL work without breaking the license. That means that it is not a one way street. In fact, Sun is contributing more than the GPL community is. He says that Sun is taking GPL software like Gnome while the GPL community can’t take their CDDL software. That is rediculous. Both licenses allow you to put applications of other licences on the same hard drive and use them. The GPL community could use everything that Sun CDDLs as long as it doesn’t link against GPL code. That is the same way that Sun is able to use GPL stuff.
Linus’ comments are better. Sun does face a huge problem in building up a community. The CDDL also allows linking with proprietary stuff – like the LGPL. He says that is bad. His stance on binary drivers would seem to contradict that stance, but whatever. He also says that this license helps Sun retain control of the code more than the GPL does and that it doesn’t make everyone an owner as much as the GPL does. That’s just not true. In fact, because of the patent grant, it makes people greater owners. There is no way that Sun can keep control of stuff licenced under the CDDL. I could very easily take all their CDDL licenced code and start a project with a licence that was GPL-like as long as that licence included a patent grant and stuff.
Also, with the GPL3 on the way and the FSF’s statement that, while patent grants are GPL-incompatible, they don’t necesserally think they are a bad idea, we might see a GPL3 that is compatible with the CDDL. Everyone, myself included, was looking forward to a big present for the GNU/Linux codebase and this license means that didn’t happen – yet. That’s not Sun’s fault. The CDDL is as open-source as the LGPL or the MPL – no one is saying that Mozilla is creating a one-way street with their license. The flames against Sun are rediculous. This is a GOOD licence to anyone who bothers to read it and it doesn’t give Sun any special treatment. In all practical terms, it is the LGPL.
Personally I get sick of people that volunteer their time thinking they are in any kind of position to tell companies how to operate.
Second, I believe Solaris 10 will be popular on it’s own merrit with the new TCP/IP stack, Linux compatibility, DTrace, containers etc.
Third, regardless of the license they chose, simply making the code available for developers to see will make the platform easier to develop for.
I know quite a few people that use Linux as a workstation rather than Solaris only because it has more applications.
I just think Linus does not want anyone to steal his thunder, remember all the trash he talked about OSX when it was new?
It took Apple only months to build a UNIX based operating that is better than Linux with a fraction as many developers.
Maybe centralised controll is not always a bad thing.
I welcome a decent workstation OS for x86 other than Linux, I am thrilled about what Sun is doing and I agree (for once) with the way they are doing it.
“The reason it is GPL-incompatible is because of what one could call a deficiency in the GPL. Namely, the CDDL ensures that you are granted a patent license if applicable with the copyright license
”
Not true.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Preamble:
” Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.”
Claus 7
“7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.”
So CDDL doesnt really add any more benefits in the angle you have mentioned.
“The CDDL also allows linking with proprietary stuff – like the LGPL. He says that is bad. His stance on binary drivers would seem to contradict that stance, but whatever.”
he hasnt said that is bad but that aligns with Sun’s potential goal of continuing to link with proprietary software it cannot get permission to relicense possibly because it belongs to a third party.. Also he hasnt allowed binary modules as such and cannot really do it because the GPL license doesnt say so and he isnt the only copyright holder either. what linus has said that modules which are not derived code potentially because it has been ported from another operating system could be allowed to be binary but this has not legal effect whatsoever…
”
I just think Linus does not want anyone to steal his thunder, remember all the trash he talked about OSX when it was new?
”
you didnt even bother to read the article before ranting all this I presume. Some press people specifically asked Linus to comment and he has expressed his personal opinions. He doesnt have a right to do that or what?
Very nice comments! There is the problem of not wanting competitors for your work. We definitely saw Novell going that route when they threatened Sun over opensourcing Solaris. As for Mac OS X, it didn’t take Apple only months. Mac OS X took many years. First, Apple bought NeXTStep/OPENSTEP which was the *NIX enviornment that OS X was based on and had years of development and then Apple developed it for many years past the buyout. NeXTSTEP 1.0 was released in 1986 and Mac OS X was finally released in 2001 (15 years later). Just to give some perspective. Apple is good, but they aren’t that good.
By realeasing Solaris under a unique license like this, Sun is probably going to have a problem creating a community around it, much like Apple has had with Darwin. Sure there is a small Darwin community(not OS X users), but it is on about the same level as other small OSes like BeOS or SkyOS.
” We definitely saw Novell going that route when they threatened Sun over opensourcing Solaris.”
No. they expressed curiosity. Dont spread FUD
Preambles aren’t legally binding. It’s nice that they’ve said that, but it doesn’t mean anything. As for clause 7 that you’ve quoted, that isn’t a patent grant. In fact, it says that if the software comes under a patent that isn’t licenced freely, you are no longer allowed to distribute the software at all. That isn’t a patent grant – ie. something that gives you the right to use that patent. It says that if you aren’t allowed to use that patent freely, you can’t use the software.
Um, we saw the article here where Novell said that they said Sun didn’t have the right to opensource Solaris because Novell claimed patents and copyrights on it. Novell DEFINITELY did threaten Sun.
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9004
“Preambles aren’t legally binding”
no but they dont have legal weight in that it makes the *intent* of the license clear which is a extremely important thing.
” It says that if you aren’t allowed to use that patent freely, you can’t use the software.”
I didnt say it was a patent grant either
claus 7 has the practical effect that unless you give a patent grant like IBM did for RCU you cannot legally distribute GPL software with patents on parts on them at all..
Lets ignore the heading and actually read the article, shall we. Of course its not even available online now but Novell expressed curiosity and even identified themselves with the Sun for trying to build a better community of users..
Also the journalist reporting the article is known for twisting tales out of everything and since it wasnt reported anywhere else, I dont believe it has any weight either
“[…] Sun is probably going to have a problem creating a community around it, much like Apple has had with Darwin.”
I don’t think so. Apple intentionally keeps many important parts of its operating system proprietary (eg. the whole GUI stuff) and Darwin is just Mach + the basic BSD layer + non GUI userland tools. Solaris will be open sourced almost completely, but without third party code Sun has no rights to open source (eg. device drivers). Even if they keep some parts private, the open sourced Solaris will offer much more functionality than Apple’s Darwin.
“Personally I get sick of people that volunteer their time thinking they are in any kind of position to tell companies how to operate.”
It’s just dead air to keep themselves in the news and make them feel significant. Read some of the blogs these “gotta have attention” types write, it will lead you to believe many of them should seek mental help.
But the CDDL does give you a patent grant which is a benefit that the GPL doesn’t give you. You said that clause 7 was equivalent to the CDDL’s patent grant. It isn’t. You admit that it isn’t a patent grant and that patent grants are positive, but say that a patent grant isn’t a benefit. It makes no sense.
”
I don’t think so. Apple intentionally keeps many important parts of its operating system proprietary (eg. the whole GUI stuff) and Darwin is just Mach + the basic BSD layer + non GUI userland tools. Solaris will be open sourced almost completely, but without third party code Sun has no rights to open source (eg. device drivers).”
Unless you are a Sun employee with the internal knowledge required to assert this, you shouldnt make this claim. Sun hasnt even committed to CDDL for Solaris nor has this license been OSI certified. So its still too early to comment on what Sun is willing to do and in what form and what effect it would have on the market..
“But the CDDL does give you a patent grant which is a benefit that the GPL doesn’t give you. You said that clause 7 was equivalent to the CDDL’s patent grant. It isn’t. You admit that it isn’t a patent grant and that patent grants are positive, but say that a patent grant isn’t a benefit. It makes no sense.”
Perhaps you didnt read me completely. Unless you have a patent grant you cannot legally distribute GPL’ed code so the practical result is that you *need* a patent grant to distribute gpl’ed code so to the end users it makes no difference whatsoever. got it clear?
“So its still too early to comment on what Sun is willing to do and in what form and what effect it would have on the market”
I disagree. Sun employees statet their intentions several times and it has always been something along the lines of complete open source. See also:
“O’Brien: Our philosophy on this is we want to be as open as possible. We don’t want to just adhere to the letter of “open licensing,” but adhere to the spirit of “open,” as well.”
http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=366
McNealy — “There were hundreds of encumbrances to open sourcing Solaris. Some of them we had to buy out, others we had to eliminate. We had to pay SCO more money so we could open the code […]”
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1540233
Second, I believe Solaris 10 will be popular on it’s own merrit with the new TCP/IP stack, Linux compatibility, DTrace, containers etc.
I do not think the reasons above would result in popularity. As an example, Windows has neither an above-average network stack, no Linux compatibility at all, VirtualPC must be paid, … – it obviously did not prevent it from being popular.
What about a wider hardware support (e.g. 3D graphics) and more commercial software support on x86?
I know quite a few people that use Linux as a workstation rather than Solaris only because it has more applications.
Then you obviously do not know people using Linux for industrial applications. What about talking to an industrial ADC card with Solaris x86? Solaris might be a good server OS, it is just a server OS. It is simply unable to cover all the applications for Linux is being used today.
It took Apple only months to build a UNIX based operating that is better than Linux with a fraction as many developers.
You obviously have zero knowledge about Apple/NeXT history.
” We definitely saw Novell going that route when they threatened Sun over opensourcing Solaris.”
“No. they expressed curiosity. Dont spread FUD”
They certainly have an odd way to “express curiosity”.
It damn sure sounded like a threat at the time, and I can imagine I’m far from the only one who interpreted it as such.
Thanks for the laugh.
”
They certainly have an odd way to “express curiosity”.
It damn sure sounded like a threat at the time, and I can imagine I’m far from the only one who interpreted it as such.
Thanks for the laugh.”
Laugh all you want but try and quote Novell on where they were sounding threatening from a valid source and you will get better respect…
That would be interesting as it might introduce some new features usable in the bsd world such as a new filesystems.
Anonymous, your post was really insightful, and very well explained. I hope it’s true 🙂 Thanks.
OK all you Sun employees, please go back to your cubicles. Mr. McNealy is in the building.
> That would be interesting as it might introduce some new features usable in the bsd world such as a new filesystems.
It’s compatible only one way. You can use BSD code with CDDL code, just as you can use BSD code in basically anything. The converse is not true; you can’t just port CDDL code to XBSD and release it, while keeping your XBSD under the BSD license.
It’s a lot like the situation between BSD and GPL code.
I appreciate Sun’s reasons for this license, but it has left me a good deal less enthusiastic about opensolaris than I was before.
I think that Sun will be able to build a community because there are some people who just dont care about Licenses and who get involved in projects for the technology itself. I would get involved. Buts its kind of funny that they bring up the Mozilla project because back when Mozilla wasnt even a household name, nobody believed Netscape could build a community from it and even offered some of the same criticisms.
It’s a lot like the situation between BSD and GPL code.
—
Not true. Revised BSD(without the old ad clauses) and GPL code can be intermixed both ways. they are compatible with each other. GPL and CDDL are not compatible either way
>> It’s a lot like the situation between BSD and GPL code.
—
> Not true. Revised BSD(without the old ad clauses) and GPL code can be intermixed both ways. they are compatible with each other. GPL and CDDL are not compatible either way
Show me the GPL code in any BSD kernel, then. They cannot be mixed both ways; GPL code can incorporate (revised) BSD licensed code, while BSD licensed code cannot incorporate GPL code; the work as a whole would need to be licensed under the GPL.
I was speaking of compatability between CDDL and BSD, not CDDL and GPL; as you correctly note, the CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
”
Show me the GPL code in any BSD kernel, then. They cannot be mixed both ways; GPL code can incorporate (revised) BSD licensed code, while BSD licensed code cannot incorporate GPL code; the work as a whole would need to be licensed under the GPL.
”
Just because the bsd guys dont want to do it doesnt mean it cannot be done. It clearly can be mixed both ways. Show me in legal terms why they cant be. I dont care for politics
” while BSD licensed code cannot incorporate GPL code;”
Not true. Legally it can be done.
Hello.
Especially in open source java applications GPL is not a favorite license nowadays. People usually chose BSD , LGPL or Apache type licenses. And this did not make the interest in open source java applications decline.
Besides, Mozilla’s MPL license is very similar to the CDDL, did it make mozilla hackers less willing?
i see GPL unfortunate, because in real world, frequently companies avoid using GPL licensed open source software.
For example if Hibernate would be GPL my company would not even look at it. And it would never beed this popular. Sleepy Cat DB is one application i would love to use, but it is GPL, company prevents.
“Show me the GPL code in any BSD kernel, then. They cannot be mixed both ways; GPL code can incorporate (revised) BSD licensed code, while BSD licensed code cannot incorporate GPL code; the work as a whole would need to be licensed under the GPL.”
Just because the bsd guys dont want to do it doesnt mean it cannot be done. It clearly can be mixed both ways. Show me in legal terms why they cant be. I dont care for politics.
Dude, you cannot do that. From the GPL faq at fsf.org:
“You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.”
And:
“Q: You have a GPL’ed program that I’d like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
A. Yes.”
I’d prefer people to actually spend some time studying a license before commenting on it.
You’re wrong; GPL and BSD are compatible (there is no such thing as “both ways”; obviously, for something to be compatible it cannot be compatible one way). That is to say, it is legally possible to mix BSD and GPL licensed code and redistribute the result.
You cannot redistribute the result of mixing CDDL and GPL code.
I think what you actually mean is “you cannot combine GPL and BSD code and treat the result as being under the BSD” – the inverse is also not true, although it’s meaningless since the BSD requirements are a subset of the GPLs. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t combine them; you just have to respect *both* licences.
> It’s built by a man with communistic ideals, with a hidden agenda on his table and who
> is considered a madman….
Dude, you watched too many cold war movies.
BSD and GPL may live in a “GPL” license, but then it woul act like a GPL license, so refused by companies who uses BSD licensed applications. So, in many cases it loses it’s value by converting it to GPL.
But that doesn’t mean that you can’t combine them; you just have to respect *both* licences.
Not true. One can only distribute gpl code + other licensed code on one program when the gpl part + other part communicate at arms lengths– that’s why for instance SkyOS can’t use gpl drivers, since using a gpl driver would mean that the entire SkyOS kernel must be gpl’d.
“Dude, you cannot do that. From the GPL faq at fsf.org: ”
Thom, the parts you quote from the GPL FAQ only talks about combining GPL and *proprietary* License. it has obsolutely no impact on combining GPL and BSD License
“I’d prefer people to actually spend some time studying a license before commenting on it.”
Sure. the comment clearly needs to apply to you as well because its is legally possible to combine bsd license and gpl license.
@aaa
“Especially in open source java applications GPL is not a favorite license nowadays”
Perhaps you need to understand reality better
Sleepycat cant bsd license their code and possibly make a business with dual licensing code. neither can mysql or trolltech.
GPL by far is the most used open source license ever. Period
For more stats regarding this, read
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
If you have done any research to prove otherwise everyone would be interested to here. Mere speculation leads nowhere
Very nice comments! There is the problem of not wanting competitors for your work. We definitely saw Novell going that route when they threatened Sun over opensourcing Solaris.
Ah, this is why i hated that article. Now please don’t read the OSnews title only, or OSnews its summary but read the actual article and you see that 1) Novell never threatened Sun 2) what they said was over specific, proprietary parts of Solaris (and UNIX) which make sense. In that context, i don’t see how one is able to conclude Novell doesn’t like competition by an action such as that.
I haven’t read the CDDL draft but concluding from the comments quoted in the article this sounds worse than closed source. SUN maintains close control over Solaris code but it will suck in open source code and give leverage to any possible claim that something was “stolen” from their code. At least with closed source, the lines are clear. *sigh*
Whatever, Solaris is fine the way it is but i am not holding my breath over OpenSolaris. Let’s wait and see what OSI is going to say.
Hello, i think you did not read my post correctly. i said “nowadays” and “in open source java.. “. it is a fact that GPL usually preferred for complete applications like Azureus. But in libraries, GPL is definitely not preferred. (check java OS projects in SourceForge, Apache group, CodeHaus, or java.net projects) in our current project we use more than 30 open source libraries. none of them is GPL and we are quite comfortable about it.
Plus, i didnt say sleepycat “should” use BSD, it was just a wish i could use it in our project.
my guess is GPL will be less and less used int the future, especially with java. and i am ok with it.
“i said “nowadays””
what?. where is your statistics related to that. java.net projects obviously dont have GPL because Sun doesnt allow that
“in open source java..
Open source java is made possible through gpl’ed app like classpath and gcc so your argument is pointless
====
“my guess is GPL will be less and less used int the future, especially with java. and i am ok with it.”
obviously wrong. fedora core 4 is about to lash you out there with gcj compiled eclipse, full gnome-java bindings with gcj and classpath, gcjwebplugin for mozilla again compiled using libgcj and so on. so its pipe dreams for you.
“Dude, you cannot do that. From the GPL faq at fsf.org: “
Thom, the parts you quote from the GPL FAQ only talks about combining GPL and *proprietary* License. it has obsolutely no impact on combining GPL and BSD License
It has. Given a situation that a BSD-licensed application will be combined with portions of the code from a GPL’d application. Whose license would prevail? BSD? No. It’s going to be the GPL, given the conditions presented in the license. Directly, the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL simply because any code that would have to be linked to a GPL’d application would need to be licensed under the GPL – otherwise it will be a license violation. This is the reason why the major BSD projects cannot directly take GPL’d code (and relicense it as BSD) unless they derive explicit permission from the copyright owners of the aforementioned code to release it also under the BSD license (short: he who owns the copyright decides the license)
Now going the other way around, a GPL’d software can incorporate code taken directly from a BSD-licensed application, as the BSD license allows for such as long as proper attribution is retained.
Now, that doesn’t prevent a BSD-licensed project from implementing the algorithms present in a GPL’d program (case in point: FreeBSD’s ULE derived from Ingo Molnar’s O(1) scheduler in the Linux kernel).
It is possible to combine them legally, yes, but the result must be licensed under the GPL should it be redistributed. It can’t be otherwise – it’s just not possible given the conditions of the license. That is the explicit intention of the GPL, as the premise for its creation is to maintain the freedom originally bestowed by the software’s copyright owner (the 4 basic freedoms) as it gets redistributed.
1- Sun does allow GPL projects runnig over Sun JVM, or written in java. (check project looking-glass, or j3D)
2- open source java is not the issue. i am talkin open source software written in java, running in any JVM or using JDK. check the reality, most popular open source java libraries and applications do not use GPL. (i am talking about trend, GPL of course exists) Complete apache jakarta projects for instance. Or this site might give you an insight.
http://www.java-source.net/ . i follow java communities daily based, this is the general feeling.
i still say GPL is not considered as the best option for business. period. Even for non-java projects. BSD or MPL is much better.
“Dude, you cannot do that. From the GPL faq at fsf.org: “
Thom, the parts you quote from the GPL FAQ only talks about combining GPL and *proprietary* License. it has obsolutely no impact on combining GPL and BSD License
It has. Given a situation that a BSD-licensed application will be combined with portions of the code from a GPL’d application. Whose license would prevail? BSD? No. It’s going to be the GPL, given the conditions presented in the license. Directly, the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL simply because any code that would have to be linked to a GPL’d application would need to be licensed under the GPL – otherwise it will be a license violation. This is the reason why the major BSD projects cannot directly take GPL’d code (and relicense it as BSD) unless they derive explicit permission from the copyright owners of the aforementioned code to release it also under the BSD license (short: he who owns the copyright decides the license)
My bad… to clarify: it’s not that the BSD license is not GPL-compatible, but that the GPL is not BSD license-compatible, as any code that incorporates GPL code must be GPL’d when redistributed.
All in all it’s good to see a move in the open source direction even though it’s only a percent. I personally salute Sun for doing this. It’s the way of the future and they see it better than other companies.
I personally think Linux and other open source OSs will benefit from this too in one way or the other. Remember, the enemy is not Sun.
”
My bad… to clarify: it’s not that the BSD license is not GPL-compatible, but that the GPL is not BSD license-compatible, as any code that incorporates GPL code must be GPL’d when redistributed.
”
Poor argument.
GPL and BSD license ARE compatible. the end product would be GPl which clearly by your own admission is compatible. whether are not bsd guys are willing to do this is their preference. Legally nothing prevents gpl code from being incorporated into the license
If they can be combined in ANY way they are compatible which means gpl and bsd are compatible *both* ways
If you dont understand this you dont understand licensing at all. go consult a lawyer
“i follow java communities daily based, this is the general feeling.
i still say GPL is not considered as the best option for business. period. Even for non-java projects. BSD or MPL is much better. ”
you feeling is worth nothing at all. Back it up statistics. I gave you mine. where is yours?
Sadly sites do not give a change to filter statistics based on language and license. However, go to the link i said, and check some subject directories and projects, you will see GPL is rare. One another point is, those projects are popular ones, not historical forgotten ones. i will try to find real numbers anyway. i do not think you are informed with java open projects anyway. the link you sent has nothing with java projects..
“. i will try to find real numbers anyway. i do not think you are informed with java open projects anyway. the link you sent has nothing with java projects..”
I wasnt talking specifically about Java projects. I am talking about the general trend. thats is more important than your favorite language and GPL rules over all other open source license in any big open source repository overall..
”
It has. Given a situation that a BSD-licensed application will be combined with portions of the code from a GPL’d application. Whose license would prevail? BSD? No. It’s going to be the GPL, given the conditions presented in the license. Directly, the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL simply because any code that would have to be linked to a GPL’d application would need to be licensed under the GPL – otherwise it will be a license violation.”
that means gpl and bsd license can be combined and they are compatible. what the end license is going to be is irrelevant to the discussion of whether they are compatible are not. clearly they are in this case…
GPL and BSD license ARE compatible. the end product would be GPl which clearly by your own admission is compatible. whether are not bsd guys are willing to do this is their preference. Legally nothing prevents gpl code from being incorporated into the license
If they can be combined in ANY way they are compatible which means gpl and bsd are compatible *both* ways
If you dont understand this you dont understand licensing at all. go consult a lawyer
What kind of mental wanking is this?
BSD and GPL can not be combined in such a way that the end result would be BSD. So they are not compatible in *both* ways. They are compatible in one way only and that is the GPL way.
BSD and GPL can not be combined in such a way that the end result would be BSD. So they are not compatible in *both* ways. They are compatible in one way only and that is the GPL way.
Indeed, I find that FALSE compatibility. BSD and GPL might be compatible from the FSF/GPL standpoint, but NOT from a BSD or independant standpoint.
^^ Standpoint should be viewpoint, I think. Not sure if standpoint is a proper English word.
My original point was that i disagree with Linus and i do not believe that Sun’s MPL like open source license will not make people to be reluctant comitting to the project.
My other point was, in business, companies tend to not open their sources, because and they see it as a potential danger (or shame of crappy code
). it does not matter if i agree with it, but this is reality. therefore they do not want to use GPL’ed libraries. this is a fact . That is why BSD, or Apache like licensed projects are much more popular project based businesses. This is very true especially for “libabry” type projects (like Spring, Tomcat, Hibernate, all Apache, Opnesymphony and CodeHous projects). Gpl finds its place more in stand alone, or research type application types (like JEdit, Eclipse, Azureus or several university research projects.).
i still stand on my points, and i believe Sun did a good thing by creating this license for open Solaris.
“BSD and GPL can not be combined in such a way that the end result would be BSD. So they are not compatible in *both* ways. They are compatible in one way only and that is the GPL way.”
the end result is not point of my argument. I was only point out that they were compatible and nobody with any common sense to read the BSD license wouldnt argue with that
”
Indeed, I find that FALSE compatibility. BSD and GPL might be compatible from the FSF/GPL standpoint, but NOT from a BSD or independant standpoint.
”
you license your code and bsd. I license my code under gpl. a third person can combine your code and my code to get a new product. you retain your license. i retain my license. third party gets the gpl’ed end product. this is compatible. this cant be explained more clearly. you can try twisting it and calling it false compatibility from your view point or standpoint or whatever. In LEGAL terms they are compatible.period.
“My original point was that i disagree with Linus and i do not believe that Sun’s MPL like open source license will not make people to be reluctant comitting to the project.”
Look. CDDL is very different from MPL. thats the point. Morever the problems with MPL caused mozilla foundation to trilicense the code base under mpl/gpl/lgpl. these problems are well known by the original MPL author..
take a look at his response to the osi submission . cddl doesnt even allow private modifications without redistributions unlike gpl for example of one sore issue
“However, one significant figure in the open-source licensing realm received the licence coolly: Mitchell Baker, an attorney and the author of the Mozilla Public licence.
Part of Sun’s agenda has been to have its licence replace the MPL, Baker said in a Thursday posting to a mailing list on the Open Source Initiative’s Web site. “I’ve looked at this licence and think there are some ways that it simplifies things, but there may also be such other issues with this language that may come up in use. Why the big rush?” Baker asked.”
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39175796,00.h…
so you want to argue with that too. go ahead…
? You must forget that Apple has Billions of dollars in the bank and didn’t need to build a community they just paid developers to do the work!
The other thing is that Apple used a lot of designs and ideas from the NeXt os and BSD. They didn’t start from scratch.
Yet Linux has the market share that Apple has. Hummmmm. 4%
Also the scary part is that Sun now is trying to take the Linux/BSD approach. Looks to me like Sun doesn’t know what to do. Yes they have a better product. Then again Sun, BSD/APPLE and even Linux have better products then Microsoft yet can’t compete. It doesn’t matter these days! What matters are “Costs, ease of use and freedom to use” I have tried out Solaris 10 and to me all I see is that people who already use Solaris will stay with it because now it’s almost free (But you could get 9 for free also)
The problem is the same things that have turned people off in the past from Solaris still exsist. Ease of use, ease to install, the cost of administrators (Solaris Admins still get paid almost twice as much as Windows admins and a little less then twice as much as Linux admins.) People say UNIX and managers etc think HARD!
I work for the US federal government and all I hear is how they are going to scale back Solaris and AIX servers or replace them with Linux or Windows servers. That is not going to change cause Solaris is Open Source.
If I understand you correctly, by “BSD compatible” you mean “allows you to change the licensing terms to match those of the BSD license”, which doesn’t really make any sense, since it would (basically) mean that the BSD license is the only one that’s BSD compatible (well except for PD stuff or licenses which allow you to arbitrarily change the licensing terms).
Note that “GPL compatible” as it is used by the FSF et al means “possible to combine with GPL’d code”. Since GPL is a copyleft license, this means that only licenses that impose no further restrictions on the work are GPL compatible.
Note that you can’t actually GPL someone elses BSD licensed code. If you combine GPL and BSD code, the BSD code is still BSD and the GPL code is GPL’d. So, you could rip out the BSD parts and use them as you wish.
The point IMHO is that a paradigm shift is occuring, Red Hat gets it, JBoss gets it, IBM gets it, Sun still doesn’t get it. It’s all about Services! The specifics of the license only matter to companies holding on to the old way of doing business. Dual licensing, OEM revenue, etc. Squeeze every last dollar out of it you can Sun!
(And I like Solaris.) Sun really is a “Janus” (pun intended). They show one face to the open source community and another to the investment community.
The specifics of the license only matter to companies holding on to the old way of doing business. Dual licensing, OEM revenue, etc. Squeeze every last dollar out of it you can Sun!
The specifics do matter to companies and do not affect how open a company is. Trolltech is an example of a company that has very successfully pull off a dual-licensing approach to their Qt development framework. You don’t need to pay if you’re developing GPL code, but if you want to make an app commercial, you need to by a commercial license.
Selling services makes sense in certain contexts. Selling services isn’t a panacea.
“ou don’t need to pay if you’re developing GPL code, but if you want to make an app commercial, you need to by a commercial license.
”
correction. you need a seperate license for a proprietary software.
The CDDL is incompatable with the GPL. Linux has fairly good support for common desktop devices, whereas Solaris lacks in this department. Sun may compete on the server level, but until my printer, scanner, TV Tuner card and all that other stuff works with Solaris for the average user it will not become big on the desktop. A lot of people think it is difficult to build a desktop computer that is Linux compatable…try having it be solaris compatable too. Since Sun has avoided the GPL, they cannot use device drivers written for Linux as they are GPLed software…meaning that Sun is going to have to release Solaris under the GPL OR convince companies to rewrite their drivers for Solaris OR to release new drivers under a BSD license or the CDDL so Sun can use them in Solaris OR just not bother aiming for the desktop market. Seeing as this is the case, I doubt Sun will compete with Linux much on the desktop except for among the lucky minority that have machines that will work with Solaris completely.
Me, as well as a lot of other people, have swapped some of their hardware (sound card and printer for myself) so that our computers will run with Linux. I know I’m not willing to swap hardware again so I can use Solaris. Linux has a lot of benefits over Windows in my opinion which is why I spent the time and money required to switch. What is so fantastic about Solaris on the desktop that I would want to repeat this process. (I have checked, my TV Card, Printer and Scanner will not work under Solaris).
Hi,
“As I see it, GPL is often used as an anticompetitive measure for companies that want to build a free platform for their products some kind of add on product or service.”
Anticompetive measure? Isn’t that a bad thing?
Bye,
Victor
Hi,
“As I see it, GPL is often used as an anticompetitive measure for companies that want to build a free platform for their products some kind of add on product or service.”
Anticompetive measure? Isn’t that a bad thing?
Bye,
Victor
“Anticompetive measure? Isn’t that a bad thing? ”
depends
Why do people insist on double posting like the post directly above mine. It is annoying. Just wondering, is there any reason people do this?
Stop the compatibility argument for a second.
BSD code can be incorporated into GPL code (with the end result being GPLed), and GPL code can be incorporated into BSD code (again with the result being GPLed). GPL code cannot be used within a BSD-licensed program with the result still being under the BSD license. You both agree that these statements are true, right?
If so, then what are you arguing about? The denotation of the word “compatible?” Unless there is a standard, universally (or at least widely) accepted legal definition of the word “compatible” (link?) neither of you is going to win this argument.
Linux creator Linus Torvalds shares some of Perlow’s concerns, but he doesn’t think the license itself is the biggest issue. “I think the real problem Sun faces is not the license details as much as trying to build up enough of a community around the source base that the license would matter,” Torvalds told eWEEK.com.
What community he is taking about? A community of developers creating GPL software? That software can run on top of Solaris 10 for x86. Sun does not need to create new community: current one can do just fine.
GPL community is already established, Sun can just cut-n-paste their work, kernel community is not that relevant if you can afford to pay your kernel developers and Sun can, seems to me Sun can do just fine.
The critical point is to follow Linux way: software is free (as in free of charge) but services cost money.
Let the better OS wins.
”
What community he is taking about? A community of developers creating GPL software? That software can run on top of Solaris 10 for x86. Sun does not need to create new community: current one can do just fine.
GPL community is already established, Sun can just cut-n-paste their work, kernel community is not that relevant if you can afford to pay your kernel developers and Sun can, seems to me Sun can do just fine.
”
What exactly was the point of OpenSolaris then? Public Relations? Please elaborate. And I think the community does matter, when you have companies like Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Mandrakesoft, HP and many others contributing code as well as independant hackers helping too. I doubt many big companies are going to rush and begin developing their own versions of Solaris, espescially if it is going to be crippled because of proprietary parts Sun can’t open source.
The problem is the same things that have turned people off in the past from Solaris still exsist. Ease of use, ease to install, the cost of administrators […] People say UNIX and managers etc think HARD!
I work for the US federal government and all I hear is how they are going to scale back Solaris and AIX servers or replace them with Linux or Windows servers. That is not going to change cause Solaris is Open Source.
I respectfully disagree. It can change. If the OpenSolaris community sees ease of use as something preventing wider adoption of Solaris, there’s a good chance it’ll eventually be fixed.
These are the ‘quality of life’ little things that Sun has apparently never had the bandwidth internally to do, ’cause they’ve been busy with hard stuff.
Linux hasn’t always been as usable as it is today.
“If the OpenSolaris community sees ease of use as something preventing wider adoption of Solaris, there’s a good chance it’ll eventually be fixed. ”
you are hoping too much. assuming that sun will eventually release a opensolaris under a good license that would encourage a community to form around it and they do concentrate on usability it might happen. it doesnt always work that way.
just ditching CDE would be a great start since gnome already does work better and Sun has worked on it. I dont understand the twisted nature of Sun when it worked on gnome only to degrade to a second class citizen on solaris and forking it in the name of “java” desktop system obsolutely hiding its true nature..
then it lets Redhat defend java on the high level gnome languages discussion while remaining obsolutely quite over mono on gnome issue…
then it goes on to lie about redhat being proprietary and not lsb compliant
whatever…
By Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—)
‘you can try twisting it and calling it false compatibility from your view point or standpoint or whatever. In LEGAL terms they are compatible, period.’
I mention this only because you are speaking in legal terms. ‘BSD-Style’ or ‘the BSD license’, which is what I take the use of BSD to represent, are words the GNU Project lists specifically as words to avoid using because of the confusion created by their use.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
With this presumption, your whole assertion, ‘In legal terms, the BSD license and the GPL license are compatible’, is useless on the grounds that you have not provided a specific license for comparison nor given the specific criteria in which these licenses are compatible. If anything, the law is very precise in its description of things. You, in comparison, have not been. In legal terms, specific licenses may be ‘compatible’, but this argument isn’t speaking in legal terms, it is speaking in viewpoints. If you’d like to provide case law showing what criteria constitutes license compatibility, feel free. Your assertion could then be debated, in a license by license manner, in its proper context, in a proper forum.
By Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—)
‘the end result is not point of my argument. I was only point out that they were compatible and nobody with any common sense to read the BSD license wouldnt argue with that’
Many, with a great deal of common sense, have argued that one license is in fact not compatible with another. Specific examples germane to this discussion being the GPL not being compatible with the OpenBSD License, argued by Theo de Raadt, and the pre-June 1999 BSD license not being compatible with the GPL, argued by RMS. Let’s stay civil here.
By Thom Holwerda
“Indeed, I find that FALSE compatibility. BSD and GPL might be compatible from the FSF/GPL standpoint, but NOT from a BSD or independant standpoint.”
False compatibility being compatibility that fails in at least one context. That context being rights granted for distribution of derived works or original source, given public distribution of binary code.
By Thom Holwerda
“BSD and GPL can not be combined in such a way that the end result would be BSD. So they are not compatible in *both* ways. They are compatible in one way only and that is the GPL way.”
the OpenBSD license gives you the option of releasing code, modified or not, in binary form, without distributing the corresponding source. What allows someone to include a piece of code licensed under an OpenBSD License with GPL’d code is the ability to never exercise this option when releasing the derived work, and still remain compliant with the OpenBSD License. What allows someone to not be able to include a piece of GPL’d code with code licensed under the OpenBSD License is the inability to exercise this option and remain compliant with the GPL when releasing the derived work. This, I believe, is what was meant by one-way compatibility for certain contexts.
By zerblat
Note that “GPL compatible” as it is used by the FSF et al means “possible to combine with GPL’d code”. Since GPL is a copyleft license, this means that only licenses that impose no further restrictions on the work are GPL compatible.
Exactly. Well said. This again reinforces the notion of one-way compatibility for certain contexts.
By zerblat
Note that you can’t actually GPL someone elses BSD licensed code. If you combine GPL and BSD code, the BSD code is still BSD and the GPL code is GPL’d. So, you could rip out the BSD parts and use them as you wish.
You can, however, GPL the derivative work. In fact, you must. You cannot, however, use a specific BSD license for the derivative work. Hence, one-way compatibility in a certain context.
By zerblat
If I understand you correctly, by “BSD compatible” you mean “allows you to change the licensing terms to match those of the BSD license”, which doesn’t really make any sense, since it would (basically) mean that the BSD license is the only one that’s BSD compatible (well except for PD stuff or licenses which allow you to arbitrarily change the licensing terms).
I think he meant changing the licensing terms to GPL on the derivative work, but being unable to license those same works under a specific BSD license.
It is possible to have multiple viewpoints, each being valid. The important thing being to choose the license which best represents the rights you wish to grant or have granted to you for use of a body of code in all possible contexts. I’m done. Let’s write some code now :^D
“With this presumption, your whole assertion, ‘In legal terms, the BSD license and the GPL license are compatible’, is useless on the grounds that you have not provided a specific license for comparison nor given the specific criteria in which these licenses are compatible. If anything, the law is very precise in its description of things. Y”
crap. I specifically mentioned revised bsd license either.
“Specific examples germane to this discussion being the GPL not being compatible with the OpenBSD License, argued by Theo de Raadt,
these are not applicable to revised bsd license and totally out of the argument.
I’ve bitched to sun about this for months, I told them to create a new open source license that gives me some more control. Great that they did this.
Thank God I can include some BSD code in there
I will take sun’s code and use it in my own OS.
I think Linus made something a long time ago and has little envolvment in it today–he has not done the majority of the work on linux–he just started it. He has really great political power. He’s mainly a politician nowadays.
The linux that linus made compared to how it is today is very different—many great improvements.
I really do not think sun will have trouble getting a community together. They have had great success with Java. There used to be significantly mor eprojects for java rather than .net.. but a few people that are angry that java isn’t open source decided to use microsoft’s technology which is stupid in my opinion. Java still rules though. i mean look, that community is great and really cool.
ok, if you invested millions of dollars into code wouldn’t you want to atleast have some control over it?
ok thats all i have to say.
”
I think Linus made something a long time ago and has little envolvment in it today–he has not done the majority of the work on linux–he just started it. He has really great political power. He’s mainly a politician nowadays. ”
ever heard of words like maintainer or engineer. his work is more hard than writing code. its the work on integrating all those patches.
”
ok, if you invested millions of dollars into code wouldn’t you want to atleast have some control over it?
ok thats all i have to say.
Report abuse
”
not really. Sun opened up openoffice pretty much the good way with LGPL.
A certain kernel maintainer seems to see a competitive threat to his baby. Knowing he can’t compete on features, he’s gone for the age old, but apparently not time wearied, approach of FUD.
Basically, this article says that people are idiots and don’t really understand the difference between a WM and an OS?
How can you possibly compare the use of Gnome to the idea that you don’t want people to copy your File System drivers into another OS?
One offers a choice for users without hurting anyone (Gnome is free, you could compile it yourself if you wanted, they saved you the time and energy), and the other takes a major selling point out of the new Solaris (speed) by offering the technology to every other open source project.
(I only use File system as an example, because, on my system at least, the new Solaris 10 FS driver is around 5 times faster than in Solaris 9… even quite a bit better than it was with logging enabled before (7-9)…)
If they replaced all of their command utilities with GPL GNU equivalents and got rid of CDE and only offered Gnome, then yes, they would have a responsibility to let other people take their code, but they did’t, so they don’t.
They only offer Gnome and other GPL things as a way to let people who are uncomfortable with their tools still get work done. Like that guy who always posts about how unhappy he is about having to pipe tar.gz files (another idiot).
I still use CDE, because it’s far faster and far less bloated, but I’m not someone who needs glitter on everything I touch. They include it for those people. Solaris certainly doesn’t depend on those parts, and as such, owes nothing as a result of using them.
The point of Open Source software in this case isn’t so that other people can steal their code, it’s so that people who already use Solaris can fix bugs.
They don’t need to build a community around it, they already have one. People who use solaris use it because they know it is the best for the task at hand, and any solaris administrator worth his weight knows C, so they should already have an army at hand…
The decision not to open-source everything in the license was likely the result of a combination of issues, Torvalds said. It’s “partly Sun wanting to maintain control, and partly … Sun not being even legally able to release those parts of Solaris that they don’t have full ownership on.”
As a result, Torvalds said, it will be tough for Sun to find support in the open-source software community. “The community that Sun must be hoping to gather round Solaris will likely always play second fiddle to Sun itself. … They’ll have a very hard time getting any real community.”
People always seem to confuse the Linux community with all Open Source communities. There is already a large community of people who use Solaris and know what they are doing. The community is more or less already there. Yes, they will be in second to Sun, but that’s because Sun knows they have people who more or less know what they are doing and know what is supposed to happen with the OS in general.
There are many projects already out there that have people contribute only bug-fixes, and that’s really all that Sun wants: To give the people who constantly rant about a bug that’s been there for 8 months to fix it themselves (like that java bug everyone was whining about last year that would probably take 10 lines of code to fix), since they don’t get enough complaints on whole to put it on top priority.
I doubt there are that many other people who would have code more useful than that of the engineers already working for Sun anyhow.
”
I still use CDE, because it’s far faster and far less bloated, but I’m not someone who needs glitter on everything I touch. They include it for those people. Solaris certainly doesn’t depend on those parts, and as such, owes nothing as a result of using them.
”
so thats why Sun is wasting time and money is developing gnome and forking it ala java desktop system. thanks for clearing up sloppy things like that
By Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—)
‘crap. I specifically mentioned revised bsd license either.’
I’m not able to parse this. If you are trying to assert that you specifically mentioned a specific BSD license, I was not able to find that information on any of your posts. The point is still moot regardless of the fact that the two licenses being compared are now the revised Berkeley license and the GPL. Are the two licenses compatible? This would depend on context. Is Microsoft Windows compatible with GNU/Linux? With tongue placed firmly in cheek, this would also depend on context. Do you see what I’m getting at? Great specificity is reserved for legal arguments, not arguments about viewpoints. By saying something is legally something, you open yourself up to a much higher degree of scrutiny.
By scraemondaemon
“Specific examples germane to this discussion being the GPL not being compatible with the OpenBSD License, argued by Theo de Raadt,
By Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—)
‘these are not applicable to revised bsd license and totally out of the argument.’
It would appear the OpenBSD License does not impose any restrictions beyond those of the revised, post-June 1999, Berkeley License.
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
This would make my example very much ‘in’ the argument.
At this point, I’m getting the feeling you have completely misinterpreted my position in regards to the GPL and its relative worth. I think it is a very well thought out license that gives a great deal of leverage to those who understand how to use it in a business setting. It allows them to compete on a level playing field previously dominated by very large companies. There are many situations in which I would license code I write under the GPL, and there are situations where I would license it under a revised Berkeley license. These are both free software licenses, both serving different purposes, and that is what is important. :^D
“he point is still moot regardless of the fact that the two licenses being compared are now the revised Berkeley license and the GPL. Are the two licenses compatible? This would depend on conte”
there is no context value. they are compatible in ALL circumstances. prove otherwise?
What is so fantastic about Solaris on the desktop that I would want to repeat this process. (I have checked, my TV Card, Printer and Scanner will not work under Solaris).
It’s not meant to be on the desktop, it’s meant to be on the server or workstation. You don’t have TV out on a workstation, and any other devices will probably be chosen at purchase for their compatibility. It’s always been a system for Software Engineers and Administrators, which is really the exact oposite of the intentions of Linux. You’re right, it won’t replace Linux on your desktop. It’s not supposed to.
It’s not hard at all to get things to work with Solaris. All three of my laptops work (different manufacturers), and I didn’t look for compatibility when I purchased them. All my desktops work fine (though you have to download the network drivers ahead of time), and my Dual CPU workstation works flawlessly, with all by my network and sound card having native support, and network and sound drivers available from the same site, with an easy link in the Solaris Compatibility database.
On top of that, once source is opened, people will probably start importing *BSD drivers, which, while fewer in number, cover most common hardware, and are generally a bit more stable than those in Linux.
Where did you get TV out from? I’m talking about a TV Tuner Card, so you can watch TV on your screen. But oh well, you have a couple of good points.
What I don’t understand is why didn’t they use the LGPL. They used it with OpenOffice and they still have quite a bit of control with it. They are able to include the code in StarOffice, which is a commercial product.
Another thing, what is all this about GNU/Linux drivers being unstable? I still don’t get that. I’ve never had a driver crash my system, nor my mom’s, brother’s aunt’s, grandpa’s nor numerous other Linux comps I’ve worked on. For the most part, driver stability doesn’t seem to be that big an issue. When servers are built with Linux pre-installed, they are built only with hardware that is completely compatable and stable. Does anyone here really find Linux drivers that bad?
“Another thing, what is all this about GNU/Linux drivers being unstable? I still don’t get that. I’ve never had a driver crash my system, nor my mom’s, brother’s aunt’s, grandpa’s nor numerous other Linux comps I’ve worked on. For the most part, driver stability doesn’t seem to be that big an issue. When servers are built with Linux pre-installed, they are built only with hardware that is completely compatable and stable. Does anyone here really find Linux drivers that bad?”
didnt you know that according to Jonathan from Sun redhat is also proprietary and not LSB compliant?
Well there are lot of such unique perspectives from the Sun’s world. Start believing them. dont ever question such vision.
Sorry, brain didn’t make the changeover properly I suppose.
And I didn’t mean all drivers are unstable, most are not. Generally anything wrong with a driver is found right away, howerever, there are many many strange devices supported that are very old and uncommon, and because of lack of testing, such drivers are often far from the most stable things in the world. Such drivers are also often left out of BSD systems for just that reason. That was really all I meant in that.
”
As I said, they are doing that because people feel the need to use something pretty. They don’t need Gnome, they include it for people who want it, because people who want something pretty don’t care about efficiency. That’s why Gnome and KDE are so popular, even though 90% of their “features” are useless eye candy (bloat).”
so sun is developing useless eye candy. great. why trust such a stupid company.?
“And the “Java Desktop System” isn’t hiding Gnome in any way, is it? ”
why the heck is it called “java” desktop system. how would you feel if redhat called its distribution redhat os?
oh come on, there is no need to be offensive and there’s no need to call people names.. very immature of you.
I talked with licensing for solaris, i told him it was best to create your own with certain things in it to give them more control. I came to talk to sun’s COO about why solaris should not be under the GPL
Grow up.
Define compatible?
From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Capable of existing in harmony; congruous; suitable; not repugnant;
Define context?
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation
or event; “the historical context” [syn: circumstance]
Is it suitable to use the GPL license in every circumstance that someone uses an OpenBSD license? If they are compatible in all circumstances, you would be able to say that each of the next four statements are true.
General Context
(1) OpenBSD License is a license suitable for licensing software.
(2) GPL is a license suitable for licensing software.
More Specific Context
(3) OpenBSD License is a license suitable for licensing software that allows a body of code created using aforementioned code along with code added on to the licensed code to be released in binary form without distribution or offer of distribution of source.
(4) GPL is a license suitable for licensing software that allows a body of code created using aforementioned licensed code along with code added on to the licensed code to be released in binary form without distribution or offer of distribution of source.
All four statements are not true. Specifically, statement 4, is false. Compatibility depends on context.
”
From WordNet (r) 2.0:
2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation
or event; “the historical context” [syn: circumstance”
consulting a wordnet dictionary to define compatibility between gpl and bsd is so absurd..
perhaps you can actually read the license and quote the condition in bsd which makes it incompatible in any context?
if you take the English dictionary to define context and copyright law you would be laughed out of court
“why the heck is it called “java” desktop system. how would you feel if redhat called its distribution redhat os?”
For one, it avoids arguments with the “Linux is ONLY a kernel” crazies that argue about the name of Redhat products at present.
Seems you can’t win here. Use the word Linux in your product name and you’ll get the crazies arguing you have no right to call your OS that because Linux is ONLY a kernel. Don’t use Linux in your OS name and you get accused of not crediting the community. Companies can’t win and if this sort of moaning (and duplicitous argument) doesn’t die a quick death you’ll soon see companies running from the community and not trying to participate in it.
I haven’t read the CDDL draft but concluding from the comments quoted in the article this sounds worse than closed source.
Sure, this is one FOSS commmunity aspect that really gets my goat:
I haven’t bothered to read X for myself, I’ll just look at what
others claim to be correct and assume Y as a result.
GO AND READ THE ARTICLE AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!! and stop being such
a dimwit slashdotter
Some achieve rational thought by themselves, some have rational thought thrust upon them ….
You clearly need it thrust upon you.
how would you feel if redhat called its distribution redhat os?
You mean like Red Hat Enterprise Linux?
Frankly, I don’t care. Red Hat can name their products whatever they want.
my only issue with calling it java desktop system is that it implies to me that it is pervasively using java through and through, which it isnt. past that call it whatever for i really couldn’t care less.
calling it a random name like java desktop system is only worse than the rest of the options. what the heck is a java desktop system a fork of gnome?
You wrote:
Very nice comments! There is the problem of not wanting competitors for your work. We definitely saw Novell going that route when they threatened Sun over opensourcing Solaris. As for Mac OS X, it didn’t take Apple only months. Mac OS X took many years. First, Apple bought NeXTStep/OPENSTEP which was the *NIX enviornment that OS X was based on and had years of development and then Apple developed it for many years past the buyout. NeXTSTEP 1.0 was released in 1986 and Mac OS X was finally released in 2001 (15 years later). Just to give some perspective. Apple is good, but they aren’t that good.
Hate to pee on your parade but just how many OS developers do you think we at NeXT ever had? I can tell you Openstep had 12 principle architects/developers. NeXTSTEP first hit its stride with 2.0. The reason that it should be argued as to why NeXT and now Apple can do so much so quickly with OS X is that the engineers already had vast experience with prior operating systems and really hammered out their design constraints before wasting time on thousands of monkeys hammering away at it.
From a talent pool standpoint, Apple Engineering has some incredibly gifted, motivated and professional engineers. Of course they have their share of arrogant pricks with god complexes, but those aren’t the ones who really drive the product and its focus. Those are the ones just smart enough to not know how dumb they are and don’t even see they lack social skills.
The arrogance goes the same for Linux and Windows developers.
If we could group all three together, along with SUN it wouldn’t be hard to know who worked at which company. I’ll leave that as an exercise. Let’s just say, style is reflected from the top down.
If the GPL does not allow for code to be licensed under any license more restrictive than the GPL, how will Sun be able to license JDS under the CDDL?
Also, it’s the GPL that prevents CDDL code from being re-used in GPL software, not the CDDL, correct? It may not be intentional, but by having a license that cannot allow code to be re-used through the GPL, their code may lose value to the community, which I believe is the argument in the original article.
not really. Sun opened up openoffice pretty much the good way with LGPL.
There is a _vast_ gulf of difference between the LGPL and GPL.
there is no context value. they are compatible in ALL circumstances. prove otherwise?
You cannot mix BSD and GPL code and license the result under BSD. THerefore, while BSD licensed code is compatible with the GPL, GPL licensed code is not compatible with the BSDL.
Note that you can’t actually GPL someone elses BSD licensed code. If you combine GPL and BSD code, the BSD code is still BSD and the GPL code is GPL’d.
Untrue. If I combine a bunch of BSD and GPL code into a product and then release that product, the *entire thing* must be available under the terms of the GPL. Ie: the code is *all* GPLed.
Certainly, you can release the _original_ GPL and BSD parts *seperately* under their respective licenses, but as a combined product, the code must all be GPLed (and the BSDL allows this).
So, you could rip out the BSD parts and use them as you wish.
No, you couldn’t. You *could* release or use the original BSD code in its own, if you had access to it from a source before the two code bases were combined, but you couldn’t “rip out the BSD parts and use them as you wish”. That code is now GPLed, and can only be used under the restrictions imposed by the GPL.
“There is a _vast_ gulf of difference between the LGPL and GPL.”
not really. the only difference comes in derivation. the diff is trivially small. my point was sun could have licensed solaris under lgpl instead of choosing a incompatible license
”
No, you couldn’t. You *could* release or use the original BSD code in its own, if you had access to it from a source before the two code bases were combined, but you couldn’t “rip out the BSD parts and use them as you wish”. That code is now GPLed, and can only be used under the restrictions imposed by the GPL.”
you dont relicense the original bsd code. the derived code is gpl. the original is still BSD. this has how opensound was bsd licensed under gpl kernel and made available under bsd license for freebsd too.
understand and read copyright law first or do consult a lawyer. I know how this works. I wouldnt comment on this otherwise.
You are entirely wrong on your understanding.