Jonathan Schwartz proclaimed ardent support for the open-source software realm but criticized the GPL.
Sun Criticizes Popular Open-Source 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
Doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
There are many alternatives which are friendly to proprietary interests like the BSDL.
Sun needs to stop bitching and write more code. 🙂
They do write a lot of code, but they bitch at the same time!
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I like that he fancies himself an economist and that he knows what developing countries need. Apparently its a big american corporation that is needed to show them the way, because everyone else is wrong. Imperialism,, hmmmmm….
“Sun needs to stop bitching and write more code. :-)”
The 7.5 million LOC in OpenOffice.org isn’t enough on top of all the OSS Sun has done over the past two _decades_?
But this quote is rather good:
“Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I’ve talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then…found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world,” Schwartz said.
I don’t understand what’s so bad about this. Developing nation uses the source code of a free project for whatever purposes their heart desires, therefore they’re required to give a little back, seems like he’s saying that developing nations only want to take.
I’d like to know what developing nations he talked to, Brazil seems to be getting on just fine with the GPL.
But Schwartz said that some people he’s spoken to dislike it because it precludes them from using open-source software as a foundation for proprietary projects
That’s the anti-GPL argument in a nutshell:
“We want to use this code so we don’t have to do so much work, but we don’t think we should have to share our work with others”.
Its garbage. People think they are entitled to this code.
The people who write free software believe in freedom from propriatary restrictions, why should people who don’t share that belief get to take their work?
Jonathan Schwartz proclaimed ardent support for the open-source software realm but criticized the GPL.
That reminds me someone else…
funny how OpenOffice is dual licensed with that “other” license. Cant be all that bad now can it?
Unfortunately he’s the COO of Sun so obviously people take him seriously. However he doesn’t represent the views of the vast majority of people at Sun.
Sun releases GPL’ed code:
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
There’s only like millions of games that run natively on Linux. But like most linux apps you actually have to go look for them.
However he doesn’t represent the views of the vast majority of people at Sun.
And on what information do you base that assertion?
Imagine a loverly version of Open office without the Java bloatware/slowpokeware inside? Methinks they would crap their knickers.
Isn’t that what Ximian’s been giving us?
The 7.5 million LOC in OpenOffice.org
Sun didn’t write StarrOffice, they bought it.
Is that the F/OSS people get all fired up about what Jonathan says and the next thing you know, there are over 100 posts from people who disagree. I think Sun’s Marketing Department is doing a wonderful job, and without realizing it, you contribute to it!
Let’s face it, every time one of these articles is linked here, the flame fest starts. It is the best advertising in the world because the F/OSS crowd more than likely goes “look at what Jonathan is saying now”. The name Sun Microsystems is getting lots of air time. Something to think about.
We all know that there are multiple open source licenses and they all have supporters and detractors.
Surely Jonathan is entitled to his opinions, just as all those supporters and detractors are entitled to theirs.
Alan.
The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users “a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world,” the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said. “If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their own) code.”
What the hell is this supposed to mean? The United States doesn’t benefit from contributions made by less wealthy countries any more than any other country.
And, while I haven’t looked at Sun’s open source license recently, I don’t remember it saying that Sun’s license will allow me to fork Solaris, make changes, and NOT contibute my changes back to Sun as implied.
By all the people I know who work at Sun. Shwartz says the most stupid things and the majority of people who work at Sun are anything but stupid.
And, while I haven’t looked at Sun’s open source license recently, I don’t remember it saying that Sun’s license will allow me to fork Solaris, make changes, and NOT contibute my changes back to Sun as implied.
Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Alan.
That is the whole FSCKING point of the GPL. is to promote open communications and OPEN code for ALL. Not just Sun CDDL programmers, but any programmer can use and modify GPL software. Sun doesn’t like that one idea. That ANYBODY can enhance, improve, or if they desire to do so destroy software to suit THEIR needs, not Sun’s needs. Open Source and the GPl are about the end User and Programmer’s control not the software vendor’s.
Why can’t anybody understand that simple concept?
I like Linux, but I never liked the idea of companies backing Linux. I hope it’s not the beginning of the companies that are backing up Linux start to turn against it.
The 7.5 million LOC in OpenOffice.org
Sun didn’t write StarrOffice, they bought it.
at verison 5 or so. Its now on version 8. Would you have preferred if it was just remained a download from Star?
Imagine a loverly version of Open office without the Java bloatware/slowpokeware inside? Methinks they would crap their knickers.
go create one then and stop bitching about it. Its dual licensed under GPL. Create your own version, start a project on freshmeat. Or can you actually code? Most opensource zealots don’t contribute code, they just bitch and moan.
They are only interested in redefining ‘opensource’ to suit their corporate goals.
Just like IBM then? When is websphere being opensourced. Or IBM’s jvm. Or Rational. Surely all of these should be GPLed as well if you can make a profit while opensourcing your code.
Give it a rest – the GPL zealotry is passed a joke, if I was a CEO and I read this forum your comments would do nothing but drive me away from OSS.
Sun give lots and get nothing but abuse back. The Linux zealots want a monoculture of Linux distributions and no competition. And is Schwartz not entitled to his opinion? Do you honestly think that there is no place for commerical software in the world?
How do you propose people make a living? Running apt-get? should people go to college for 4+ years in order to come out and give everything away because someone like you thinks that all software should be free? Why bother doing new research if its just going to be copied (show me something original in Linux please – something which hasn’t been done in a commerical guise before, hold on, I’ll come back in five years).
“Let’s face it, every time one of these articles is linked here, the flame fest starts. It is the best advertising in the world because the F/OSS crowd more than likely goes “look at what Jonathan is saying now”. The name Sun Microsystems is getting lots of air time. Something to think about.
”
Yeah, look at all the records Britney is selling now that she’s hooked up with Cletus Cowbell…
oh wait..
I too know a lot of people who work at Sun. I have yet to find anybody within the engineering community which I am part of who thinks that Schwartz and McNealy are bad for the company.
I’d be interested in knowing the sample size that you are using to extrapolate to over 33000 employees.
This is directly from Sun’s CDDL. Sun’s own open source license has the same characteristics that he complains about in the GPL.
3.2. Modifications.
The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License. You represent that You believe Your Modifications are Your original creation(s) and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
“[/i]That’s the anti-GPL argument in a nutshell:
“We want to use this code so we don’t have to do so much work, but we don’t think we should have to share our work with others”. [/i]”
There is of course the small matter with the gpl viral effect. IMO using gpl for apps is fine, but using gpl instead of lgpl for libraries and system stuff is pure cynicism.
Ummm, no it’s not.
The part of the GPL that many folks object to is the part that deals with mixing code. ie if you mix code (eg modify or link) it must all become GPL.
The section that you posted is simply protecting the software from people placing code into it for which they do not have the rights.
I would have thought this was a good thing.
CDDL is a file based license. The files released under CDDL remain under CDDL (and any license that it is able to mix with). If you add a file, you are entitled to place that file under any license you please, as long as ou satify the requirements of that license.
Alan.
The paragraph you cite is irrelevant to the discussion about open source imperialism.
The GPL provisions which are being complained about are the ones which say that no matter what you do to the source you must release your changes as source back to the community.
The CDDL says that if you change a CDDL-licensed file which you did not create, then you must release your changes back as source to the community.
That is a stark difference between the two licenses.
Sigh,
Strange, I’ve been working here for several years – like James I don’t know these people that think Jonathan or Scott are bad for the company either. But perhaps I only talk to people within the engineering community, and in support, and in sales, and in… oh hold on that would be people right accross the company.
BTW did you read Jonathan’s blog posting? http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20050404#inevitability
There is slightly more to the entry than what news.com extracted, not that journalists would be trying to create a sensation or anything. Or start yet another CDDL v’s GPL debate.
Anyway, I’ve got work to do, so back to the grindstone.
Elizabeth Montalbano wrote a much more balanced (less pot stirring) report on what Jonathon spoke about at http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNCID=39&CIaNID=18428&r=r…
Alan.
I don’t think you’ll find any employees at Sun who would agree with the stupid statements that Shwartz says. My favourite is when Shwartz claimed that Linux was the first UNIX to run on x86. Nevermind that Linux isn’t UNIX and SunOS actually ran on x86 before Linux was even written. That’s just braindead incompetience and is typical of Shwartz. He’s got a big mouth and a head full of uninformed opinion. That’s bad enough if you’re just talking for yourself but, as this article shows, everything that comes out of Shwartz’s mouth is considered the official opinion of Sun.
Sun should focus on selling brand name, and not worry whether or not it is open source, in fact, it should embrace the GPL.
SUN has a lot to learn about free software and its communities.
They just dont want to admit it. So on one hand they say they completely embrace open source and on the other hand they attack it.
>The CDDL says that if you change a CDDL-licensed file
>which you did not create, then you must release your
>changes back as source to the community.
>
>That is a stark difference between the two licenses.
Which is basically meaningless when it comes to C code (and most programming languages’ source). You can easily #if 0 out or make static a CDDL function, and replace it with your own version in a file you have created.
Since when does GPL mean the whole open source movement?
For goodness sakes folks. There are a number of FOSS licenses and they all have there proponents and detractors. Thes proponents and detractors feel free to make any comment on either pet issues.
There’s really no story here.
The thing that I guess really annoys me here is that Jonathan said a whole lot of otherstuff in that presentation, but the press picks up on something is guranteed to start a sh*t fight.
Alan.
They peaked in Spring 2001. Since then its been downhill. A great company once.
This is not the first time upper management has said blatantly stupid things like this. I saw this all of the time when I used to follow the java development process very closely. On one hand they acted as if they loved the developer communittee but on the other hand whenever people showed them blatant bugs in java Sun completely ignored them.
I can’t personally see what is wrong with Schwartz stating a known reality. It is truly amazing how many armchair CTO’s are willing to comment about intellectual property when they would be lucky to know the diffreence between trademarks, patents or copyright.
Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I’ve talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then…found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world
Omitting of course “for no real financial gain.” – The biggest problem with the GPL is that if you enhance an existing product made under it, your own IP work suddenly has ZERO VALUE.
The mere notion that ANY programmer would voluntarily support Open Source astounds me no end… You are basically saying that your labor has zero value, as anyone can copy it, slap their name at the top and take partial credit for your work, distributing it as they like.
“oh, but you can make money supporting it” – as can anybody else since you gave away the SOURCE! This is why your die-hard open source nuts are generally kids having their way paid through college by mommy and daddy or “Career Educators”… If Open Source is “The Future” of programming, programmers are going to end up panhandling on street corners as the Business majors laugh themselves all the way to the bank.
For the love of god, STOP DEVALUATING YOUR OWN WORK!!!
I’m not sure I understand you correctly. If I take foo.c from OpenSolaris, and use it unmodified in libbar, I don’t have to release the sources to libbar. But if I modify foo.c, I have to release those modifications? Is that correct?
Ironicly, Sun has released plenty of software under the GPL. They dual license a lot of their software under the GPL. They have a lot of projects that they discontinued currently under the GPL. Maybe they should convert those licenses if they care so deeply about it.
I don’t come to OSNews much anymore it seems. Mainly because each thread seems to be negative and a lot of complaining. On this thread, it’s mostly bitching. Hell, I’m doing it now too! =D I guess I’ve done it too.. Yes I’m guilty.
I think people are afraid of free thought and when execs’ power opinions get publicized.
Sun has not really betrayed anyone. They have stayed true to everything. IBM even sends out emails telling customers how sun changes directions and so fourth–they never have. Oh, e-mail me and I’ll tell you. Please check facts first. Sun has done a completely horrible job at combating the smear campaigns, while they fail at their attempts to smear their competitors (although some of them are blantantly true).
If Schwartz says anything to any significance someone on here will post something negative about it–no matter what it is–i gaurantee you.
Obviously you’re looking for a flame war and im sure you’ll get it. Its also apparent you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about what open source means.
Personally im not an open source purist but i have found the open source communittee has an incredible amount to offer.
Linux was written to be an “open source version of unix”
Now that Solaris will be open source (Solaris IS Unix) then UNIX will be open source…
The only thing Linux does not have is certified by the open group. It’s nearly compatible with most UNIX OS’s.. It is unix in my opinion.. a clone is it’s parent
Thats right you cant make money from open source…i’m poverty stricken
I’m actually in a homeless refuge as I type this.
Wake up to yourself.
True.
that sums it up.
Why can’t we just muzzle Jonathan? He’s proved time and time again that he cares about Sun, and fuck everything else. I’m sick of listening to his half-witted, dumb-assed, idiotic, moronic sub-dribble.
Sun are two faced, lying, fence sitting hypocrites that would screw their own grandmother to make a quick buck. I certainly don’t, and NEVER will trust them one single iota. NEVER.
If there’s one thing in this world I really wanna see, and that’s Sun to go bust. At least Microsoft doesn’t act in a two faced manner.
If I want to use GPL software because I LIKE that license, and if companies and governments wish to do the same thing, it’s got nothing to fucking do with Jonathan and Sun. He really pisses me off. Badly.
It obviously seems that the Sun fanboys are out in force today, must protect their “leader” at any costs. Sorry, I believe in personal friends, and the GPL gives me them, and ensures that those who use the code return back to the community if they alter, improve it for commercial profit etc. Sun can stick it’s filthy Solaris, and it’s CDDL where the sun don’t shine (pun intended).
Sorry for the strong language David and Eugenia (and other moderators), but this sort of dribble really just ires me something bad.
Dave
If you watch Jonathan Schwartz talk (lots of clips in sun.com’s news section), he comes across as someone who “gets it”. He thinks big, he thinks years into the future, and he can see beyond this religion–cult, actually–that seems to have formed around a _subset_ of the FOSS community.
Sun is aiming right at corporations and universities, for example, who have varied needs and interests, and the CDDL is perfect for that. The fact that it’s file based is huge! I could take OpenSolaris, add in a whole module that’s linked right into the final binaries, and not feel obligated to join the CDDL club, if I don’t want to. That’s a whole layer of flexibility that simply is not part of the GPL. It doesn’t go as far as BSD does, but it achieves a useful middle-ground.
The patent grant is also huge. Real businesses do care what their legal team says, and Sun spent a long time setting up the legal provisions in the CDDL to cater right to these folks. Sun took real tangible steps toward curbing frivilous lawsuits, which IBM’s “shotgun approach” to granting patents lacks. If you wonder why, it’s because IBM left the real work up to the community, while Sun’s lawyers have already spent years getting OpenSolaris ready for primetime along with genuine indemnification. It really is a big difference.
Also, if you pay real close attention to what Sun is doing, the underlying theme is a preparation for truly commoditized computing. It’s inevitable that Microsoft’s super-heavy and high-maintenance client will fade as leaner and simpler services gain traction. As far as I know, Sun is the only company out there with virtualization as fine-grained and as versatile as their Sun Grid system. Sun is poised to deliver _anything_ over the network from a hosted Container. Microsoft certainly is not. IBM is much better off, but I doubt their systems are as services-oriented and as flexible as Sun’s are.
People complain about Sun all the time, but watch as HP fades, watch as Microsoft stagnates, wacth as Red Hat stays where they are, watch as Novell stays where they are, and yet the rising “big guns” of the industry are inevitably IBM and Sun. No one else has the breadth that these two companies have. As software prices fall through the floor leaving only services and servers to generate revenue, what other companies can really pull it off? Will people still be paying $500+ for MS Windows and MS Office in 2010? Will people really want to continue multi-sourcing their systems from Red Hat and Dell? How much longer can the IT industry tolerate this really distasteful status quo before caving into more managed services, making their computing systems more like their telephone systems?
Sun’s goal is simple – open Solaris (one day), and then start suing linux developers for copying code. Since no one from the community will be making changed to OpenSolaris, the inverse will not be possible.
And don’t tell me they can’t sue because both licenses are OSI approved, that BS.
Trust me, the first lawsuit will appear within six months of the code for Solaris becoming available.
@Rayner:
I’m not sure I understand you correctly. If I take foo.c from OpenSolaris, and use it unmodified in libbar, I don’t have to release the sources to libbar. But if I modify foo.c, I have to release those modifications? Is that correct?
That’s pretty much how I understand it.
@Anonymouser
Spot on (see my earlier comments on selective reporting)
@CrapFilledTeaCup
So, if there is no suit within six months of source code release will you retract those words?
Will you also retract “Since no one from the community will be making changed to OpenSolaris, the inverse will not be possible” on the first non-Sun putback into Open Solaris?
Also, to which community are you referring? Or are you attempting to imply that there is only one open source community. If that is the case, then it seems a little on the arrogant side.
Solaris already has a community, just because it is not the same community as the Linux community does not make it any less valid or relevant.
Alan.
ps: I find it interesting to note what camp the vitriol is coming from.
Give me one instance where Sun has been the aggressor in a lawsuit against anyone in the FLOSS community. Just one example would suffice.
I am not quite sure what to make of Schwartz at times like this. On his blog he said that third world countries stand to benefit from having software patents and tried to tie in the GPL with the end of software patents. I’m still trying to figure out how that works. The interesting part of his strategy is that he is trying to get people to think that if software patents go by the way side that there will be no “protection from the GPL.”
I posted more of a rebuttal here:
http://www.blindmindseye.com/2005/04/05/suns-schwartz-should-stop-w…
I guess the annoying thing is that he seems to believe that proprietary software companies ought to be entitled to use gpl’d code. It also implies that somehow people who have coded GPL’d stuff have no idea what the license they use means to them.
However, people who code with the gpl do so with the exact intentions the gpl serves. If you can’t respect the intentions of the author, then by what right can you be entitled to the code.
Does he think that his rant will somehow change people’s intentions to see the CDDL light? If that was the case, it would have happened long ago with greater support for the revised-BSD. However, the majority of open source software is carried under the intentions of the gpl.
Yes, that might be frustrating to certain companies, since they see a massive goldmine which is practically untouchable to them in their opinion. But then again, the intentions of the gpl is intentionally against the spirit of those certain companies, and for a reason.
And to deathshadow… I don’t see many lawyers panhandling, even though the legal code which they help to create in court cases is free to all to read and use. Even the worst, most crooked lawyers find a way to make a decent above average living.
Of course the problem these programmers are having now is that gpl’d software is not widely proliferated enough to create a much more effective economy from service, but that will change with time as it becomes much more proliferated.
It also makes programming able to benefit from a local economy. Nearly every town has at least on lawyer in it, and their jobs can’t be sold overseas since their is a wide demand for their services which are time sensitive and benefit from a certain proximity.
The same is the case with programmers, once gpl software reaches a much higher level of proliferation. Once this happens, it will take the power out of the hands lf companies who can on a whim fire their entire programming branch so they can pay people 30 dollars a month for coding overseas.
Just like a lawyer can represent themself as their own business or join a firm, programmers will be able to do the same, and their living won’t be based on dictation from clueless managers and hotshot million dollars an hour CEOs.
Greater strength for individual programmers is proximity and demand, and this will give them freedom to choose the jobs they wish to take, the schedules they want to abide, among many other personal benefits.
Many HTML designers have proven this model already.
I personally can’t wait for the day to come where the software economy changes to that vision, for the users, and the programmers.
Alan Hargreaves (IP: —.sun.com)
James (IP: —.sun.com)
fintanr (IP: —.sun.com)
And what should we think of
Anonymous (IP:—.anonymizer.com)? Another Sun employee?
At the very least, you guys shouldn’t be posting from work.
Meanwhile, Alan and James had these similar arguments:
“The part of the GPL that many folks object to is the part that deals with mixing code. ie if you mix code (eg modify or link) it must all become GPL.”
“The GPL provisions which are being complained about are the ones which say that no matter what you do to the source you must release your changes as source back to the community.”
However, this quite incorrect. The code is only GPLed if distributed. Of course, from an ISV’s point of view, the CDDL is less threatening than the GPL.
Ultimately, the real success of the license will depend on whether it’s as widely adopted as other licenses, such as the BSDL and the GNU GPL (the latter being used for an impressive 68% of projects on freshmeat) or not. If it’s only used by Sun, then it won’t have much of an impact on the evolution of F/OSS.
those who might not know, since I can’t tell whether you do or not, the gpl only requires that you release code if you distribute it to another person.
On top of that, there is nothing in the gpl that says you must release code if you mix it with something else, whether it be proprietary or whatever, or your own system.
It is only on the point of distributing gpl’d code to others that you also give them the code, and that the code you give, if you added code, must also be gpl’d.
That does mean that you can’t give someone gpl code that is mixed with proprietary code. It does mean that you can mix gpl’d code and proprietary code on your own systems.
Hopefully that clears some things up.
“On your own system” not “or your own system.”
On top of that, there is nothing in the gpl that says you must release code if you mix it with something else on your own system, whether it be proprietary or whatever.
Since when does GPL mean the whole open source movement?
It doesn’t, however the GPL is by far the most popular open-source license. You can’t attack it and expect a good portion of the Open Source movement not to get offended.
It smacks of “divide and conquer” to me. Weaken open-source by trying to exacerbate flamewars between pro- and anti-GPL factions.
The thing that I guess really annoys me here is that Jonathan said a whole lot of otherstuff in that presentation, but the press picks up on something is guranteed to start a sh*t fight.
If you make provocative statements, then you must expect them to stir a sh*t storm. If you don’t realize that, you don’t deserve to be the CEO of a large corporation. Either Schwartz was deliberately trying to provoke that debate, or he’s an incompetent. He’s your boss, you get to choose.
Omitting of course “for no real financial gain.” – The biggest problem with the GPL is that if you enhance an existing product made under it, your own IP work suddenly has ZERO VALUE.
In general, software is a tool. Its value is often the capacity to create wealth or offer a service, it is not wealth in itself except to ISVs. Economics does not require software to be a product. It can be developed to enhance a company’s product. Google is a fine example of this.
As it is, many OSS programmers are employed by companies (such as SUN, ironically). And we have plenty of examples that, in relatively little time, Open-Source applications have begun to rival proprietary ones. This isn’t a passing fad, it is a major change of paradigm in software production, as large as the one that appeared when software first started to be mass-marketed (not so very long ago, when one thinks of it).
It seems the business models around software haven’t stopped in their evolution. That’s only natural, given that commercial software distribution as we know it is only started about thirty years ago.
Why should we not be posting from work? Sun actively encourages it’s engineers to post publicly.
I will grant the point that you make about distribution being required for that clause to be active. This is actually the point that we are making, I should have mentioned that part.
Let me attempt to rephrase.
The part of the GPL that many folks object to is the part that deals with mixing code and then releasing/distributing. ie if you mix code (eg modify or link) and want to distribute the result, then it must all become GPL. The point that Jonathon was making is that this then means that all of the associated IP goes directly into the public domain.
Part of the reason that CDDL was submitted was specifically to provide a license that could be re-used. Most specifically the only place that Sun is mentioned in the license is as the license owner. It was also written to remove Country specific references.
> So, if there is no suit within six months of source code
> release will you retract those words?
yes, but i will not have to. you know i am right. i am sure people in sun are licking their chops waiting to pour over kernel patches to see if anything remotely solaris is appearing, and i am sure they have been instructed to do as much.
> Will you also retract “Since no one from the
> community will
> be making changed to OpenSolaris, the inverse will not be
> possible” on the first non-Sun putback into Open Solaris?
yes, but i will not have to, because intrinsic to suing linux coders will be the ongoing protection of the solaris codebase from the inverse.
lets face it, sun is no more intrinsically motivated to open sources than microsoft.
sun has run out of technical options in the market, this is a hail mary play by sun legal. a SCO-like response to linux was bound to happen at some point.
ps: I find it interesting to note what camp the vitriol is coming from.
I believe it came from your CEO.
>> The part of the GPL that many folks object to
does “jonathan schwartz” and “darl mcbride” constitute “many”?
It actually doesn’t go to the public domain. It goes under the protection of the gpl which is protected by copyright law.
If it went to the public domain, there would be no copyright protection.
If you meant to say that it would be free to the public to modify, sell, and/or give away… then I would agree.
And everyone bit!
He obviously doesn’t mind the GPL that much really, or OO.org wouldn’t be dual licensed with it.
You know in wrestling in the weeks leading up to a big match the wrestlers always trash talk there opponents?
That’s all that Jonathan Schwartz is doing right now.
By releasing Solaris as an Open Source unix, Solaris will be joining the BSD’s and Linux in the open source unix world. Jonathan is trash talking his number one opponent, GPL licensed F/OSS.
It aint personal, and of course it’s tinged with FUD. But don’t be too hard on him. After all, he’s competing for OSS programmers mindshare because he wants people to code under the CDDL.
He’s trash talking the GPL in order to plant the seed in F/OSS programmers minds that they can be more financially successfull using a license that allows IP. It may or may not be BS, but that’s probably why he’s saying it.
Cheers
Wemgadge
Why should we not be posting from work? Sun actively encourages it’s engineers to post publicly.
Of course they do. That’s the whole point.
Would you, or most Sun employees, feel comfortable publicly posting an comment critical of Schwartz or Sun’s management on OSNews? Somehow, I’d be surprised. One can therefore hardly take your arguments as unbiased.
One would think that this was pretty obvious…
The point that Jonathon was making is that this then means that all of the associated IP goes directly into the public domain.
The GPL isn’t public domain. Code in the public domain can easily be mixed in with proprietary code.
The reason we post from work is we can – its transparent, and in Sun all employees are trusted to talk in public – i.e. everyone (yes everyone) in the company can set up a blog on blogs.sun.com.
You get to see what we are saying and what our affliation is. Nothing being hidden. re the anonymizer comments, I’d actually like to see anonymizer comments prevented on one hand, but on the other hand it would defeat the purpose of an open debate (when it ocassionaly happens on osnews).
Out of curiosity what is your affliation?
>> Give me one instance where Sun has been the aggressor in a lawsuit against anyone in the FLOSS community. Just one example would suffice.
some time in 2006 you will get your instance…i suspect they will go right for the osdl, based on the assumption that the osdl is where kernels are distributed from.
osdl is a key threat to sun – a well organized and funded community garden that competing systems/hardware companies can use as neutral ground to promote a joint codebase. yes this is a threat to microsoft too, but the difference between sun and microsoft is about 80 million installed systems.
Schwartz doesn’t like the GPL.. the same license that allows Sun to ‘repackage’ years of community effort and brand it as ‘Java Desktop’. Plenty of people assume it’s their work, I’m sure.
Sun has been irrelevant for how long? I can’t believe they’re even still around. freaking dinosaurs.
Out of curiosity what is your affliation?
I work for a game developer, in other words a company produce proprietary software/entertainment/artistic products (games aren’t just software).
I will not say which company because a) it’s irrelevant and b) if it was relevant, I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I was doing PR for my company. Simply put, I’d be concerned that it would damage the credibility of my arguments.
…as many others have already pointed out, that Schwartz sounds a bit hypocritical criticizing the GPL in such strong terms when the license is itself used by SUN in a lot of its software.
Simply put, I’d be concerned that it would damage the credibility of my arguments.
Unfortunately if I posted from a non sun ip address I can be certain that I would be told by members of this forum that I was being underhand in not declaring I work for Sun – we can’t win either way with most of the folks that want to bash Sun, so I prefer to be open and post from work, and thankfully my employer allows that.
“does “jonathan schwartz” and “darl mcbride” constitute “many”?”
Lots of people have issues with the GPL. For instance, I’ve worked on contracts where it turned out a couple of OSS projects were the best tool to work with, but guess which one I chose: the non-GPL one. The reason for this is that I needed to modify the code, there was no way in hell of getting the customer to want to re-release their limited-use codebase to the world, and the result is that the GPL is a barrier to adoption. This isn’t about greed, either, rather it is a matter of using the best tool for the job (which is a great complement to the OSS project owners).
GPL’d code is great to use, but when it comes to shipping _all_ modifications with binaries, people really start to clam up. You’d be blown away by how common this scenario is. Even IBM (rah rah Linux) keeps lots of trade secrets tied up in their mainframe VMs and their middleware software stack. Good luck ever getting the source to those!
…Schwartz sounds a bit hypocritical criticizing the GPL in such strong terms when the license is itself used by SUN in a lot of its software.
You need to understand that choosing the correct license for a product/project/whatever does not automatically mean that that same license will be correct for any other product/project/whatever that a company chooses to release.
For OpenOffice.org, the GPL was clearly the correct license. For Netbeans, the s/Netscape/Sun Microsystems/g version of the Mozilla Public License was clearly the correct license. Given Sun’s constraints (due to existing licensing and corporate governance ie US S.E.C. rules+regs), the CDDL was chosen as the correct license for OpenSolaris.
If Sun chooses to use the CDDL or MPL or GPL or …. for other projects or products, then that is purely a matter for Sun.
I think of it as Sun being licensing realists.
“Sun to ‘repackage’ years of community effort and brand it as ‘Java Desktop’.”
Sun spends many millions of dollars developing StarOffice and GNOME. You want to believe they are freeloading, but you are misguided in that. In fact, you benefit from Sun’s investment any time you install a Linux distribution (quite a bit of Sun code in there). They’ve also said that Solaris 10 has $500 million of R&D put into it–guess that will disappear in OpenSolaris?
The “freeloader” arguments simply have no basis.
“For instance, I’ve worked on contracts where it turned out a couple of OSS projects were the best tool to work with, but guess which one I chose: the non-GPL one. The reason for this is that I needed to modify the code, there was no way in hell of getting the customer to want to re-release their limited-use codebase to the world, and the result is that the GPL is a barrier to adoption.”
Was this for some proprietary software they wanted to sell, or was it for an in-house system?
I say this because you can work on other people’s gpl’d code. You can work on it and not be considered a distributor. In fact, you can distribute the gpl’d program so that it is in their “ownership”, and then work on their code to modify it into whatever they need. You do not have to release the source any of any of modifications you perform on their code.
Now, the only problem they would have is if they tried to distribute it again to someone else, say another company. At the point of distribution in that case, they’d have to release the source including the changes that were made in the program they are giving away.
Then again, they could just distribute that company the same code that you distributed to them originally, and then that second company could hire you to do the same thing to their code that you did for the first company. That way both houses could keep their modifications hidden if they wanted to, as each would likely have slightly different modifications needed.
But the first company could include your service as a package deal in a sale of gpl’d software.
The possibilities are many, I believe, as long as you really know the gpl, and can sell it to businesses appropriately.
However, if you were dealing with a proprietary software company, then I understand your decision.
“At the point of distribution in that case, they’d have to release the source including the changes that were made in the program they are giving away.”
Or selling, I should add.
@a nun he moos
You miss my point I was speaking of the IP (intellectual Property) entering the public domain, not the code. There is a substantial legal difference.
@CrapFilledTeaCup
Ahh, so you have no evidence to backup your statements, merely supposition on what you think “might” happen. Who is generating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt now?
A number of people are misquoting Jonathan. All he was saying was that he has spoken with a number of companies who find the GPL unworkable for what they want to do. No hypocrisy here.
The IP would not go to “the public domain” any more than IP would go to “the public domain” under the gpl.
As I wrote before:
“It actually doesn’t go to the public domain. It goes under the protection of the gpl which is protected by copyright law.
If it went to the public domain, there would be no copyright protection.
If you meant to say that it would be free to the public to modify, sell, and/or give away… then I would agree.”
You are playing with a definition of the public domain which is not the legally recognized definition, nor common use definition.
“The IP would not go to “the public domain” under the gpl any more than IP would go to “the public domain” under the CDDL.”
Perhaps amongst a group of software folks “public domain” was a poor choice of words.
What I am trying to say is that the IP generated *must* be published if one is going to use GPL’d code and have a desire to distribute the result.
While the GPL currently provides copyright protection, it provides absolutely no protection of Intellectual Property (eg trade secrets, patents, …) and there exist folks for whom this is important.
The whole discussion is pivotal around this point.
It comes down to appropriate licence selection. GPL is (very) good for some things and not for others.
The examples cited are from the group of things that it is not good for.
For folks who wish to leverage off open source software but not disclose IP, GPL code must automatically be excluded from the equation. There are other licenses which are far more friendly in this area (eg BSD and CDDL).
Before anyone else gets onto the “freeloader” and “theft” theme, if the author has specifically chosen a license that permits this kind of usage, then it is neither of those things.
Believe it or not, there are folks out there who quite simply want their code to benefit everyone, not just those who wish to promulgate the ideals enshrined within the GPL. And again, please don’t misunderstand me, I truly believe that the GPL is an appropriate license for many things. Just not for everything.
Actually, you are wrong.
CDDL specifically allows you to keep code unpublished if you so desire. It only requires that files already under CDDL remain so.
So I just read Jonathon’s blog listed earlier and I must say I applaud his intention. What he outlined seemed to be a very reasonable license that would foster innovation and participation whilst protecting IP. Just looking at it from a developmental perspective his model is more highly evolved then the common GPL as it not only provides you the right to share your code but also the right to to keep your IP. Just as we provide patents for innovative physical products so should we provide protection for those who produce innovative intellectual/immaterial products.
I’m not saying that the CDDL is perfect but thinking along the lines that Jonathon is proposing will lead to more innovative and “integral” (thanks Ken Wilber, see the 4 quandrants and the integral meme) models for the open source community, giving it even more relevance and strength in the ensuing OS wars at the beginning of the 21st century. The gpl is fine in many circumstances but other more inclusive licenses need to be created as well…It’s called evolution.
“In your own work as an integral philosopher, you’ve always emphasized that, as we evolve and develop from one level to another, it’s necessary to transcend and also to include what has come before…”
-Andrew Cohen speaking to Ken Wilber
“Integral” means “inclusive, balanced, comprehensive.” The Integral approach may be contrasted to other methods—mythic, rational-scientific, pluralistic—which, as they themselves announce, exclude other approaches as being inferior. They are thus, by definition, partial and incomplete. These latter methods, although widely accepted and dominant in the world’s cultures, tend to generate partial analysis and incomplete solutions to problems. As such, they appear less efficient, less effective, and less balanced than the Integral approach.
-Ken Wilber
-Paul (more to come)
“Was this for some proprietary software they wanted to sell, or was it for an in-house system?”
Mainly in-house, but there were multiple competing companies contracting on it who had to work together but didn’t necessarily want to work together. It was just the sort of environment were the GPL got really murky and the BSD/Apache/etc licenses made everything much much simpler. Instead of worrying who gets what code when, it was all pretty cut-and-dry, which is really important when the bureaucracy is thick and the competing interests are woven like a pile of spaghetti.
And it isn’t like it was all a big code-grab from the OSS world. I remember submitting a patch back to the project, for example, and participating on their mailing list. The ecosystem of OSS is more pervasive and varied than the GPL purists would claim it to be, IMO.
“While the GPL currently provides copyright protection, it provides absolutely no protection of Intellectual Property (eg trade secrets, patents, …) and there exist folks for whom this is important.”
Again, this doesn’t explain anything differently.
The Gpl doesn’t provide copyright protection, copyright defends the gpl and makes its license applicable. So the gpl does not provide copyright protection to the person using it, because that would imply that the person using that “provided copyright protection” could leverage it against others who are obeying the gpl to keep them from using their code.
In that its protection by copyright can be used to sue those who try to use it in ways the gpl doesn’t allow can it be considered to have copyright protection.
Of course it doesn’t use other IP to do this, because they don’t have the power to.
“it provides absolutely no protection of Intellectual Property (eg trade secrets, patents, …) and there exist folks for whom this is important.”
Since it doesn’t protect copyright, as copyright protects it, of course the gpl doesn’t also protect trade secrets, patents, or trademarks, because the very concept would break the gpl. If that were the case, any company with that “protection” could sue anyone who used GPL’D code, modified it, and redistributed it, and then could try to charge them, or force a settlement with them.
These legal tricks and games used frequently are not allowed under the gpl, because they would impede the freedom it represents.
If a software company is actually a front for an IP legal strategy, then of course they shouldn’t use the gpl.
Also, the impression that you do not disclose IP under the BSD is erroneous. If you contribute or distribute something under the revised-BSD, of course you are disclosing IP. That is why free projects that aim to become standard file formats release there code as BSD… so that no one can lay IP on them, even themselves.
However, anyone using the BSD to release software would lose IP anyways as other companies could incorporate it into their proprietary software which could be sold. Under the GPL, other users can not put your code into a proprietary project to be sold. If IP was your concern, and you wanted to protect it from your competitors, the GPL would do a far better job of “protecting it” that the BSD, since your competitors which are probably looking at proprietary models would not be able to use the GPL’d code.
I really can’t tell if you are trying to be intentionally deceptive or not. It is hard to believe someone at sun would be this poorly informed on the subject.
I am not being deceptive, and it appears that either deliberately or otherwise, you appear to be missing the point that I am trying to make.
With regard to protecting IP by using software released under licenses other than the GPL, the point that I am trying to make is that there are licenses that permit you to incorporate code under that license into your own product and not require you to release the modifications if you are going to distribute.
I perfectly understand that this is something that the GPL was designed to explicitly forbid.
I agree that if you redistributed under another license that you would be giving away just as much as you would if you distribted under GPL. That was not the point. There are folks who desire the “freedom” to not have to distribute their IP.
The protection provided byu the other licenses is that you don’t have to distribute the bits that you wrote.
We could argue all day about exactly what “freedom” means, and I suspect that you would keep your opinions and I would keep mine, as would pretty much all of the readers. The noise generated in such an argument would simply be annoying and unprofitable.
“Actually, you are wrong.
CDDL specifically allows you to keep code unpublished if you so desire. It only requires that files already under CDDL remain so.”
Actually, you are still trying to imply that the GPL would go to the public domain, which it doesn’t. Which is what I said originally.
You say that, while at the same time, if any company releases their software under the BSD and possibly CDDL, that could actually would basically become public domain, which any other proprietary software company could use if they saw fit.
The GPL does not force you to release your code, only if the program you are distributing is modified. You can keep modifications to yourself, if you wish, and only distribute the original code you received to others if you wish.
Of course, if you are trying to say that the BSD and CDDL benefits proprietary software companies because it lets them keep their own code proprietary, then that would be correct.
But of course the GPL is not about benefitting proprietary software companies.
that “code” I meant
“that could actually would basically become public domain”
“The GPL does not force you to release your code, only if the program you are distributing is modified. You can keep modifications to yourself, if you wish, and only distribute the original code you received to others if you wish.”
should be
“The GPL does not force you to release your code unless you are distributing it. Only if the program you are distributing is modified do you have to give the source code of those modifications. You can keep modifications to yourself, if you wish, and only distribute the original code you received to others if you wish. You could also not distribut at all”
Actually, you are still trying to imply that the GPL would go to the public domain, which it doesn’t. Which is what I said originally.
You’re trying to read stuff into what I’m writing that is not there. See further down for my comments on this.
But of course the GPL is not about benefitting proprietary software companies.
I agree entirely. That is the crux of this discussion.
What I have been trying to say (over and over and over) is that there are folsk for whom the GPL works and theer are folks for whom it does not.
Of course, if you are trying to say that the BSD and CDDL benefits proprietary software companies because it lets them keep their own code proprietary, then that would be correct.
I’d actually go a bit more general than that in saying that CDDL and BSD benefit both the open communities and the proprietry companies, in different ways.
You say that, while at the same time, if any company releases their software under the BSD and possibly CDDL, that could actually would basically become public domain, which any other proprietary software company could use if they saw fit.
I used the phrase public domain specifically in realtion to IP. Public domain in terms of software licenses means something compeletely different .
Believe it or not, I think we are actually finding poits to agree on.
Quick example. I receive a GPL’d copy of Open Office. I make a modified version of it for myself but still keep a copy of the original. Someone asks me if I have Open office. I say yes, and give him a copy of the original with the source code of the original.
I do not have to make my modifications public. There is no clause which forces you to release modifications that you make.
Now say that same person told me that they liked open office and wish it had a feature, and that feature turns out to be the modification I made. I tell him that I’d sell him a copy for $20. He says yes. Now, in this case, when I give him the modified program, I have to give him the source code of my modifications.
It is important not to blur the lines on this subject.
Good example.
Other licenses vary on how you could have reacted in the second scenario.
It comes down to which license the original code is under.
“Of course, if you are trying to say that the BSD and CDDL benefits proprietary software companies because it lets them keep their own code proprietary, then that would be correct.
I’d actually go a bit more general than that in saying that CDDL and BSD benefit both the open communities and the proprietry companies, in different ways.”
I would agree with open communities comment, if you mean open communities that want to allow their work to be used by proprietary software companies.
However, the intentions of those who use the GPL is to not allow their work to be used by proprietary software companies.
“I used the phrase public domain specifically in realtion to IP. Public domain in terms of software licenses means something compeletely different”.
Ok. How about you define what you think the differences are, and we’ll see if they hold water.
“Other licenses vary on how you could have reacted in the second scenario.
It comes down to which license the original code is under.”
But then, why criticise the GPL when it is serving its intended purpose?
If you want to promote the CDDL, why not promote it based on its own intentions? Its use or future is based entirely on its intentions, not on the intentions of the gpl.
Stating the obvious about the gpl as if it were a negative thing to those who have contributed to it and agree with its intentions doesn’t seem very wise.
Attacking it as if people don’t know what they’re getting into when they are using it couldn’t be beneficial, as the majority of people who use it do understand it, because they agree with its intentions.
If they agreed with supporting proprietary software companies, they wouldn’t have used the GPL to being with.
But the GPL is the market leader in Open Source licenses I suppose, so this is a strategy to counter its dominance?
I would agree with open communities comment, if you mean open communities that want to allow their work to be used by proprietary software companies.
Distinction noted.
I’ve already said that I should not have used the term public domain. In terms of licensing anything, the phrase “public domain” is one that should probably be avoided at all costs, as if one releases something into the public domain, one gives up all rights to it.
What I was referring to was the publication of a companies IP into the publicly viewable arena. I believe that there is a substantial difference here, and I’ll cry “mea culpa” on not being sufficiently clear on what I meant.
What I am addressing is that there are companies who (rightly or wrongly) fear competitors taking advantage of intellectual property that they have developed. If that IP is placed into software that is available generally (say under GPL, or anyuthing where you can view the source code actually), then they fear a loss of competitive advantage.
Now if they are building using code under GPL, then there is no choice, GPL was designed to prevent exactly this behaviour. If the derivitive code is distributed, then so must be the source code.
Other licenses allow for choice here. And please note, folks license code under those license in full knowledge that they are permitting this behaviour.
“I’ve already said that I should not have used the term public domain”
exactly Alan. that was a poor choice of words
”
Now if they are building using code under GPL, then there is no choice, GPL was designed to prevent exactly this behaviour. If the derivitive code is distributed, then so must be the source code. ”
yes. this was by design to prevent proprietary distribution of GPL’ed code. I believe licensing discussions by Jonathan should be more clear but then he has made statements that Red Hat is a proprietary distribution specifically citing backported kernel code and has also stated that its not LSB compliant without reading /etc/redhat-lsb so its not a big suprise here
The GPL does not force you to release your code, only if the program you are distributing is modified. You can keep modifications to yourself, if you wish, and only distribute the original code you received to others if you wish.
What does this mean? if anything at all. So you can’t distribute code or binaries you modified without releasing the modifications as opensource under the GPL. How is that not forcing you to release your modifications?
Is it just me or have you just have totally missed the point of the debate,
Reading the excerpt here (no time for the whole art.)
I guess Schwartz focuses not exactlty on the licence but underlines the fact that OSS advertizing campains having GPL’d software as the poster (or the reverse) reach developing countries programmers minds much much sooner than education about all implications of the licence.
Regardless of their stance to freedom (freedom of software in particular).
Remember that being law savvy may be a tradition in anglican countries but not necesairly elsewhere. Remember also that english law-speak is accessible to very few people there, so in knowledge of the GPL implications you’re basically reliant of what a nearest advocate tells you (or not).
This way they are exposed to situations where they are suddenly forced to give away their products of labour, while not prepared to it. It happens all the time, even in the US.
I think it would be *fair* for the FSF to admit this can be a problem. It’s OK to support advertise your ideals, but it’s not OK to let you your peer fall into the trap due to his/her lack of knowlege. And yes, just throwing a website is not enough.
What can be done about this? I have 2 ideas:
1. Simpier and more powerfull
Put a BIG warning at the begginging of text of GPL v3:
e.g. “This is a VIRAL licence. By incorporating the below document you agree to disclose all the sources your program consist of.” (or something like that)
2. More complex but more likely on part of FSF
Translate GPL to all world’s languages and simplify it to the point where common people can easily get it wholly, or maybe publish an official abstract.
But the GPL is the market leader in Open Source licenses I suppose, so this is a strategy to counter its dominance?
Hmm could this be because GNU/linux is the dominating opensource operating system and software that runs on it gets forced to adopt the GPL or the GPL proponents get thier panties in a twist.
Case in point, Mozilla was forced into a dual license a few years ago. RMS or ESR urged Java developers on linux to stop using propietary JVMs on linux and start using a GPL’ed/FSF approved JVM a la classpath.
I wonder why people have strong feelings against the GPL……!!!
Schwartz also predicted that companies that pledge support for open-source software but that keep their own products proprietary will eventually be exposed as hypocrites and fall by the wayside
Like Java? :p