“As Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems, UK-based Simon Phipps’ job could become ever more tiring, it seems. The biggest step the company has taken so far is definitely the announcement of the Java Development Kit (and Runtime Environment) becoming free software. We invited Simon to keynote at FOSDEM and, due to his busy schedule, interviewed him about Sun’s position in the free software universe over the phone.”
I hope more people read it than the (lack of) replies in the comments show. Basically it tells us that Sun is against software patents; although they are currently in the process of acquiring them, he likened it to carrying a gun when everyone else carries them. They like the progress of the GPL3. The only negative reaction to GPL’ing Java was from IBM. He also re-iterated Sun’s open hardware like OpenSPARC and said that people still make money off open products by being good at services. Even got into the proprietary 3d-card drivers field:
“—Are you planning to open up all the hardware knowledge of Sun? How is this compatible with being a high-end hardware manufacturer?—
Opening up _all_ the hardware stuff is difficult because many of our hardware partners are reluctant about trade secrets. For example, we still don’t have free drivers for our video chips. It will be interesting to see whether Intel is going to release free drivers for the discrete graphics chips that have just been announced.
In response to the argument that anyone could just copy our hardware designs, I can only answer with an anecdote. Do you know the joke of the plumber and the washing machine? [not really –ed]
There’s this guy whose washing machine is broken, and het calls in the plumber. The plumber comes over, looks at the washing machine for fifteen minutes, and gives it a kick. And suddenly it’s fixed.
He then charges $150 and the customer is outraged… That’s hundred-and-fifty bucks just for kicking the washing machine! To which the plumber answers: I charge $20 for kicking it and $130 for knowing just how to kick.
Sun is a bit like that plumber – the amount of know-how that we have is significant. And opening up all the platforms that we have is not the same as giving away all our knowledge. There will always be some stuff about our work that’s ours, which we won’t share – like for example how to manufacture high-performance processors.
”
He also mentionned doing a talk, does anyone have a video of that?
Yes, very interesting indeed.
I always thought that software patents today are used as the atom bomb. That is, nobody really plans to use it but everybody wants to have it just to keep forces balanced. I can’t believe Microsoft will ever start a patent war, because in such war everyone would lose, and the richer you are the more you lose…
The solution will be to get rid of software patents completely. Though I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, I think it’s what will finally happen someday. So it was good to see that SUN somehow shares this view.
Also very interesting about open hardware. They are not afraid of opening it because one thing is open hardware and another is the knowledge you have about it. I wish more manufacturers shared this view. Open source drivers are not about stealing secrets. They are about allowing a better use of their hardware for every user on any platform.
My hat off to SUN for the way they’re planning and doing things.
on Saturday, 12h, in the Janson Room at UBL. The talk video should be up some time afterwards on the FOSDEM site as the other keynotes regularly are.
The only negative reaction to GPL’ing Java was from IBM.
The GPL is a bit clumsy as a license for a web service platform. This is coming from a pretty strong GPL supporter. It places severe restrictions on how a commercial vendor might want to create a specialized service delivery platform for niche markets. The GPL is brilliant for platforms that ordinary users and developers require to operate their computers, but clumsy for platforms that appeal mostly to commercial vendors. If it were all about the Java JDK, then the GPL would be great, but the J2EE is better off under Apache or BSD, which means that the JDK can’t be GPL.
GPL Java hurts IBM more than it hurts Sun, since only Sun owns the rights to sell GPL exceptions under a commercial license. This is the primary motivation for Sun’s strategy here. Let’s not forget that IBM was also the only negative reaction to MS OpenXML, and that Sun is trying to use the GPLv3 as a wedge to divide the Linux development community.
On the issue of software patents, though, Simon is dead-on. It’s not just that software patents are a threat to OSS, but also that the success of OSS is an incredibly compelling rebuttal of software patents. We have one side of the software industry that operates in a world where exclusivity encourages innovation, and another that operate on the principle that sharing encourages innovation. The thriving OSS ecosystem is proof that the assumptions on which patents are based are deeply flawed, at least in the context of the software industry.
Edited 2007-02-22 04:01
Given that Sun licensed the J2ME class libraries under GPL with an explicit exception removing the clumsy bit, and plans to do the same for J2SE, the GPL/GPL+LE mix is perfect for the domain: you get the benefit of an accepted free software license, making no restrictions on software than can be built on it (contrary to the Apache license, whose GPL-incompatibility makes life hard for people trying to deploy GPLd code on top of it in certain scenarios), while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the platform below the exported API by making proprietary forks of the class libraries (i.e. the feared proprietary forks of Java) non-trivial.
Win-win situation for everyone, except those that want an open source JVM, just to be able to close it off again.
Edited 2007-02-22 17:10
…some of the great contributions of Sun to the Free Software world. Where would we be without OpenOffice. It may turn out to be one the most historic programs ever in the FOSS battle. And they are in the process of opening Solaris (most of it is) as well as Java. I think that is some serious contribution. I know there are some who will say it is because of this or that. All I know is I am very glad they have done it!
Thanks Sun!
I originally only dealt with Linux systems as an admin so when I took on the responsibilities of my previous job as a Solaris admin, I was very wary. I looked at our support contracts and noticed we had gold support contracts on our Sun servers, so I manufactured an issue to do with NFS and called their tech support. The dude was so friendly, helpful and knowleadgeable that in no time at all I was de-stressing about the systems we ran.
If any IT company knows anything about service, especially software as a service, IMO it must be Sun.
“Let’s not forget that IBM was also the only negative reaction to MS OpenXML”
That’s what MS said (in terms of companies) but several countries in ISO lobbied against it too. I’m not certain what you mean by GPL3 as a wedge though, unless you mean “Linux” as the kernel or “Linux” as in GNU(gpl3)/Linux.
MS and I (wow, that’s a weird clause for me), were referring to the ECMA standard proceedings, which are way more “rubber stamp-like” than ISO.
I meant Linux as in the kernel. They are using the GPLv3 to prevent any code sharing between the Linux and OpenSolaris kernels. In addition, the GPLv3 is effectively null and void in combination with the CDDL because the latter is more permissive in all cases. For example, OpenSolaris will continue to be very weak copyleft because the CDDL permits any code to be linked with CDDL code provided it lives in its own source file(s). It’s solely a street cred play to try to appeal to the sensibilities of unsuspecting Linux kernel developers. The kernel development community is not amused.
My impression is that GPLv3 is an interesting option for them since
a) GPLv2 is going to be replaced by GPLv3 (in the big picture, specific projects may chose to stay with GPLv2 in domains where change is impractical), so picking GPLv2 means having to deal with GPLv3 migration pain, as well, sooner or later. Better to simply pick the current version of the license when it’s ready.
b) GPLv3 makes layering exceptions on top of it to grant further rights easy, so easy, in fact, that LGPLv3 is being rewritten to be a simple exception to GPLv3. The proposals for OpenSolaris adopting GPLv3 I’ve read on the blogs talk about an assembly exception to GPLv3, which would give it an impact comparable to that of CDDL, without the baggage of flame wars associated with it.
picking GPLv2 means having to deal with GPLv3 migration pain, as well, sooner or later.
Unless otherwise specified, GPLv2 code automatically converts to GPLv3 when it comes out. No migration pain except to prevent the automatic conversion if it’s not intended. Newer doesn’t necessarily mean better.
The LGPLv3 model is nice, but it’s just a different way of expressing the differences. It’s six to one. half a dozen the other.
If you read my post before (presumably) modding it down, you would note that the GPLv3 does act like the CDDL when combined with the CDDL. You’re suggesting that the purpose of the GPLv3 is to sneak one over of the GPL crowd, which is exactly what I object to! You’re idea of a positive is my idea of a negative.
As Linux kernel (re)licensing debates show, there is a lot more effort involved in converting a code to a different license than just the legalistic aspect.
Even if you look at the OpenSolaris debates around the GPLv3+assembly exception proposals, you’ll find a lot more effort going into expressing and dealing with angst, rather than specifics of some legalese. It’s the social disruption that’s expensive when converting projects between different licensing options. Picking v2 when v3 will be available soon would mean picking to deal with v3 migration angst, in addition to dealing with GPL angst in general, for no particular benefit in v2 over v3, afaict.
I’m not suggesting anything sneaky, nor did I mod you down. Let’s leave conspiracy theories out of this discussion, please.
As Linux kernel (re)licensing debates show, there is a lot more effort involved in converting a code to a different license than just the legalistic aspect.
You just don’t get it. The Linux kernel is intentionally licensed to prevent automatic GPL version updates. The usual license text says “GPL version 2 or later,” whereas the Linux kernel omits the “or later” part. If they didn’t do this, right now they would be tracking down each and every contributor to the kernel to relicense under GPLv2 only in order to prevent automatically being licensed under the GPLv3.
The GPLv3 will work fine for OpenSolaris, but it just doesn’t work for Linux. Linux must be able to satisfy the requirements of service providers, who often need to restrict what gets loaded into the kernel (i.e. signed drivers). The GPLv3 prevents this.
The Linux kernel community will likely never upgrade to GPLv3, so no “migration angst” will occur. It just isn’t an acceptable license for the kernel, whereas GPLv2 is working fine. Would we like to have patent protections a la GPLv3 or CDDL? Yes. But not with the associated baggage of either license. There is clearly a benefit to v2 over v3, and it’s that v2 doesn’t limit what our users can implement with Linux.
This isn’t a problem for Sun, because they can sell flagship Solaris under a commercial license for those who require DRM functionality. Even still, the CDDL permits DRM functionality, so the combo license allows this for OpenSolaris as well.
> Unless otherwise specified, GPLv2 code automatically converts to GPLv3 when it comes out.
Who says that? If I remember correctly, there isn’t any automatic licence update provision in any version of the GPL. The distributor has to make a conscious decision to distribute under an updated GPL and this assumes that the distributor is allowed to update the licence.
He’s referring to the “version 2 or later” clause that many GPLed projects include in the license, the Linux kernel being one of the notable exceptions.