“It looks like Sun is indeed going to re-run Caldera, right down to creating a Linux distro (Java Desktop) with lots of proprietary addons in an attempt to enforce per-seat/per-employee licensing,” writes Groklaw founder and editor Pamela Jones (“PJ” to the online world). If Sun’s hope is that we “will all be foolish enough to not care about the GPL and thus forsake Red Hat and SuSE, etc. Dream on,” she continues. “The real question,” Jones says, “is – when that fails – then what will Sun do?” Read the full article.
Linux Viewpoint: Sun Shows Its True Colors, Says Groklaw’s “PJ”
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
linux biased article.
sun is in competition with linux. JDS will be ported to solaris soon and they will drop linux.
remember folks, its ok to bash linux. if its wrong to bash linux then its wrong to bash microsoft. it’s competition, and they have the right to do it.
sun has contributed more to open source than most any other company like OpenOffice. linux on the desktop would have been adopted much much slower. Sun also helped work on Mozilla. sun labs have opend sourced alot of neat things.
this article is just a reply to what OSNews posted previously.
This article is a good example of all that drivel churned out by politically inclined OSS followers (RMS springs to mind). It is not to say that OSS is bad, OSS is one of the absolute greatest phenomena to happen in history of software. It is the political labels that the cult followers such as PJ love to hang on commercial products that if anything are destined to improve the wellbeing of Linux and OSS comunity. This comparison to Caldera and hint of SCO is absolutely pointless and aimed at inflaming the Linux followers against Sun. If anything Sun is the biggest friend of OSS movement as the previous poster mentioned.
I think she is overestimating the number of people who actually care about the “free-as-in-freedom” part of the GPL. Many individual enthusiasts use Linux because they can download ISOs for “Free-as-in-beer” prices. In addition, many companies really don’t care what liscense their software is under as long as it lowers their TCO and runs the software they need. If linux from sun does this better than a GPL distribution, I don’t think they will really care. Finally, the GPL is a pain in the rear for many commercial ISVs. Sure, in some circumstances it is totally appropriate, but in some it is not. Right now, if you link against a piece of GPL code, your whole codebase needs to become GPL. Thats all well and good, but it just is not appropritate in some business scenarios. This fact alone leads to a lot of duplicated code and less interoperability between software that is and isn’t “Open Source” – causing headaches.
Just because Sun sponsors open source projects does not mean that it is a friend of open source.
Why do they contribute so much? For their gain.
They needed a new DE to replace their aging CDE, so they sponsored GNOME to help move it along.
They open sourced Star Office so they could spread wider adoption so they could push Star Office to business people (since business people want/need support).
They sponsored Mozilla so they would have a browser to leverage against Microsoft.
They are just using open source as a way for their own gains and their own measures. It’s not illegal and I have nothing against it, but don’t call Sun a friend of open source.
Don’t believe for a second that McNealy wouldn’t sell want to be in Gates’ position right now. Since Sun can’t compete against Microsoft without leveraging open source software, it is forced to.
> They open sourced Star Office so they could spread wider adoption so they could push Star Office to business people (since business people want/need support).
Correct. It is a symbiotic relationship where both sides win — Sun excercises commercial gain from its markets and OSS comunity gets good quality free software. I fail to see that there is something wrong with this picture unless you belong to RMS cult that preaches free-as-in-communism/freedom software.
“i think you are not our friend.”
“so, you are our foe.”
what a beautiful world!!
keep bashing, don’t worry,
there’re lots of bandwidth outthere.
Why do they contribute so much? For their gain.
I’m not disagreeing with the above post, but the same could be said about RedHat, Suse, or any company that sells (services) GPL software. In fact, I would argue that even people who “dontate” time to code on Open Source are doing it for their own gain (either ego, or to get paid by their employer).
The fact is, companies are profit seeking entities. Its nice to think that people just sit around and write OSS for the sake of the technology, but that is just not the case, nor would you want it to be to build an effective platform and industry. There has to be something in it for whoever works on it. The more people who have a stake in it, the more staying power the platform has. (Take a note from MS and their army of ISVs and MCSEs that keep windows ticking for example).
The question is, shouldn’t you be happy that companies like Sun and IBM and Apple are spending their hundred million dollar R&D budgets on improving OSS instead of writing code and keeping it behind closed doors? If anything, I would think their expertise, time, and money would add more to OSS than could potentially be taken away.
Plus, so what if sun uses mozilla cause they need it to compete with MS. Thats better for Mozilla (more users) and web standards (more users with standards compliant browsers). Should we have a qualification check to use OSS? I think not…
I would counter that OSS is Suns best friend not the other way around. Sure Sun open sourced Star Office (thank you) but it is the open source version that is garnering all the interest. Star Office would just be another also ran against MS Office if they hadn’t opened it up. Now there is a market to upsell customer from OO.o to SO. Same goes for GNOME. Sun needed a better desktop in order to remain competitive and they got it cheap by helping out GNOME. The problem with Sun is they think they can add their own “secret sauce” into their distro and that no one will notice. When you buy into JDS from Sun you will be depending their proprietary components and that makes it difficult for you to switch if you later decide to migrate to a different distro. Same vendor lockin that you get with MS. Sun accuses other distros of forking and being proprietary but they are the ones doing it!
I see two camps at Sun, one that is willing to open source stuff and has done a lot of good, and another that would like to go back to the old proprietary days and only grudgingly is dabbling in OSS in order to curry favor with developers and user. I my mind Sun is trying to get people on board linux with JDS only to pull a switch later and convert JDS to Solaris with a linux compatibility later. Much of this DOES sound what Caldera tried to do before they became SCO.
I my mind Sun is trying to get people on board linux with JDS only to pull a switch later and convert JDS to Solaris with a linux compatibility later.
Why would they do that? The rules of economics would seem to say they could save a lot of money by using a Linux kernel rather than maintaining solaris. Look at IBM for exmaple. I bet they can’t wait until Linux 2.6 is as good as AIX so they can be done with dumping money into duplicating kernel coding efforts and leverage the “community” work.
I couldn’t agree with you both more!
and.. RE: EH?
I agree with you but I think they are most likely taking stuff from the BSD kernels. There’s a reason why people love BSD and thelike– you can close it and make alot of money off of it. Although Solaris is based on Srv. 7, it included ALOT of BSD stuff from SunOS. I bet you they are taking code from the BSD’s 😉 If they aren’t they must be stupid.
I would personally rather use a NewOS or BSD kernel for my OS anyway 😉 OpenBeOS and FreeBSD all the way!
i forgot to add.. Linux is still one of the most exploited unix based systems around. It still has not proven itself regarding security. Novell NetWare moved to Linux kernel i believe. I think sun might do it eventually if it surpasses solaris at more rapid pace
linux biased article.
According to M$ shrills any artical to do with linux in a positive light is ‘biased’ but m$ is perfect.
sun is in competition with linux. JDS will be ported to solaris soon and they will drop linux.
That may or may not happen.
remember folks, its ok to bash linux. if its wrong to bash linux then its wrong to bash microsoft. it’s competition, and they have the right to do it.
its not about “bashing” Linux. Its about creating valid arguments that Linux may need improving on, not avid trolling of the same ol m$ FUD.
Its not so much about competition. M$ never understood such thing so that point is moot by the very history of M$ the reason m$ gets ‘bashed’ is because it IS valid arguments. They have done the same thing using the same tatics over and over again and the people why buy in to those tatics everytime don’t have a leg to stand on.
Simply put Linux is not based on criminal behaviour and no amount of pro m$ excuses is going to change that!
I was just saying that if it wasn’t for Microsoft in their way, they would have never opened anything up. They don’t want to open things up, but they *need* to in order to compete. Contrast this to Novell who has actually taken a SUSE and made it more open by making YAST GPL’d. Yes I know businesses are out to make money which is probably why I don’t really trust most businessmen.
I am grateful that Sun has done what they have done, but I dont trust them as far as I can throw ’em.
re: Anonymous (IP: 144.140.2.—)
Not a member, but I do agree with some of his points.
re: bact’
Great song “Beatiful World” by Devo. As for bandwidth, I have plenty since the University pays for it. (muahaha)
re:Incogneto.
I agree, that is kinda what I was trying (and failed) to get across in my post. We appreciate everything Sun gives us, but Sun would rather we all just go away so it could sell more Solaris, SO, etc… liscenses
“I fail to see that there is something wrong with this picture unless you belong to RMS cult that preaches free-as-in-communism/freedom software.”
“This article is a good example of all that drivel churned out by politically inclined OSS followers (RMS springs to mind). ”
I’m quite certain this is going to get moderated down but I don’t care. I’ve never seen so much hatred for one man in such recent memory. Cult this, and commie that (and worse comparisons I’ve heard elsewere). What exactly has RMS done to you to spew such hatred? Is he keeping you from living the life you want to live? Is he taking food out of the mouths of your children? Is he making people drink poisoned kool aid ala Jim Jones? You all speak as though having principles is the most evil thing that one man can do. He sticks up for his principles, what have you stood for? You know I better stop here before I say what I really think of your attitude.
Wow. It is amazing how bad the Sun guys are when it comes to PR. Think “We have no Linux strategy”, for example, and the quotations in the article appear to be similar stuff.
One the one side begging and pleading for support for the Java development platfrom, and on the other side disparage what they depend on.
Now, why should any Free Software developer support Java, for example? Obviously they can do it on their own.
Hi
They actually said solaris is more compatible with linux rather than redhat and called redhat a proprietary distro. any SUN supporters want to back them on that?
“I fail to see that there is something wrong with this picture unless you belong to RMS cult that preaches free-as-in-communism/freedom software.”
a symbiotic relationship is not contrary to RMS. Openoffice is dual licensed and thats fine. Sun can have advantages with openoffice by selling sun office as a branded version. thats fine. no problem.
They shouldnt do what they did above and call java as open source software. thats lying
I must have overlooked the “free-as-in-communism” part. I don’t agree at all with that.
How exactly is GPL communistic? Its more like the constitution: You have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. The Constitution basically says you can do whatever you want without impeaching on someone elses rights. So I can have a gun, I can shoot stuff. But I can’t legally kill someone since that would impeach on someones right to “life.” All the GPL does is apply this concept to software. Is that so hard to agree with? (of course this might be harder to agree with if you dont live in the US)
If I buy a car should I not be allowed to look under the hood and modify the engine or customize it? Should I have to sign a liscense saying I cant take it appart, redistribute parts, fix things, or even use it in a way it was unintended for?
And if you really want to get technical, no government has ever been a true Communism. They have all been dictatorships. In this sense proprietary software is more “communistic.”
It is hard to say what side SUN is on from just reading 2 pages. If SUN has to have earning to make their share holder happy then they need a good business model . If SUN can make a good desktop distro out of Linux more power to them they are dishing Redhat it may be due to some issues they had with them when they started some kind SUN/Redhat deal that went sour . SUN has been a long contributor to open source I hope their new business model works. Sun should ride the Open Source movement and lets hope they survive.
unless you belong to RMS cult that preaches free-as-in-communism/freedom software.
I think I can proudly say I belong to that cult.
Isn’t it interesting to see the difference in perspective between popular “News” articles comparing Sun to Linux and this less-popular but more technical overview from Pamela Jones.
What interests me specificly is the underlying tone and importance these different camps place on money and immediate financial reports to back up their viewpoint. I find this interesting because economics is a social science, but some of these more popular journalists treat it like a religion.
I just thought that might be helpful to show the commie perspective. Yep, we want to give it all away. Sad, innit?
Right now, if you link against a piece of GPL code, your whole codebase needs to become GPL. Thats all well and good, but it just is not appropritate in some business scenarios.
Its really quite simple. See, you use GPL code to save on licensing costs. If you NEED to write closed-source proprietary software to SELL you write your own (duh!) or purchase a commercial license like what’s available for Qt. Expecting the GNU community to give you IP so that you can repackage it and sell it as your own is what we’d expect to hear from a member of the BSD community. They’re the real commies, not us. See, we make you work for your dough, unless you’re one of us. Perhaps it should be the GNU/commie party, sorta like the Republicans but not quite so evil.
I have a lot of respect for PJ, but the more she writes and speaks the less objective she becomes. Groklaw in the early days was a great place to get objective facts about the SCO case. Now most everything is so pro-linux slanted that some of it is not even readable. I agree that SCO is likley going to lose and has made many publicity and legal blunders but I would still just want objective analysis, not cheerleading.
On this particular “article” I fail to see how choosing JDS with it’s proprietary elements makes it any harder to migrate to another distro versus say migrating from Suse to another distro. She objects also that there is little indication that the software is GPL for most of the core components… Tough, there is no requirement that I am aware of for this. For that matter neither does any other distro. It is generally taken for granted that GPL software is used in a Linux distro. The distinction is the EULA that JDS has, but again that is well within Sun’s rights. They want to make a profit and to control thier work. If you don’t like it don’t use it, but don’t complain when a company acts within the scope of the GPL license for sing the GPLed software.
I miss the thorough, impartial PJ of the past that has been replaced by Stallman Jr. (For the record I have great respect for Stallman as well but I don’t think you can argue that his attitude or public statements are based on a road to moderation.)
RMS is referred to as commie not because of him supporting “free” software, bit because of BIG political agenda that he is attaching to and pushing along with the software. His refusal to acknowledge the commercial underpinnings in developing of free software and using free software to derive profit is quite political and does resemble the parallel with hypocritical “freedom” in a communist state. BSD is my definition of freedom, not RMS.
I wouldn’t so easily dismiss those who use GPL because it’s “free as in freedom”. Twenty years ago, if you were old enough and not just a glimmer in someones eye, you would remember that there was a great deal of diversity in the PC world. Sure the majority of software/hardware was proprietary stuff, but there were no Microsofts around either. Yes, every software houses dream was to become like the Microsoft of today but they weren’t there yet. If you didn’t like someones software you’d buy it from someone else; not quite “free as in freedom” but more on the order of free as in free-choice. For along time now freedom-of-choice hasn’t been the norm but the times are changing; it’s only natural.
As far as the GPL goes, I believe you are wrong about the linking thing. As long as you don’t redistribute, anything you create is yours and you don’t have to give your code away either. There’s also the LGPL by the way which allows you to distribute your binaries. If what you say is true about the GPL then why does commercial software for Linux exist? (To name a few: Oracle, DB2, Websphere, Lotus Notes, etc.) Then again you don’t have to develop software for Linux.
You sound like you’ve been drinking SCO/MS’s kool-aid. Interoperabilty problems arise from closed source or proprietary protocols or standards which leads someone to try to reverse engineer a protocol. Reverse engineering often leads to missing important details and hence functionality problems. Of course, just because something is open doesn’t necessarily lead to a software Nirvana. There are sloppy programmers and bad implimentations and cosmic rays to blame too.
“I may have invented control-alt-delete, but Bill Gates made it really famous.”
– David Bradley
dude have you read the origional communist manifesto. It actually isn’t that bad but peopel are corrupt and cannot implement it correctly. the GPL closely follows the ideals but people try to exploit it and make money. FSF has classicly been anti-business in the past. never has there been a ‘real’ communist government.
but yeah its communistic- and theres NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. absolutely nothing wrong with it. I GPL’d some software i made myself.
remember folks, its ok to bash linux. if its wrong to bash linux then its wrong to bash microsoft.
Actually, this is a fallacious analogy. Linux is a kernel, Microsoft is the world’s largest corporation per capitalization and owner of two quasi-monopolies (Windows and MS Office), as well as a lot of corollary (but not very profitable) businesses.
I understand you mean to say that no one is shielded from criticism. Of course, the criticism must be founded! As far as corporate ethics go, Microsoft’s abysmal record speaks for itself. They have basically used every dirty trick in the book to protect their monopolies, stifling the diversity and innovation that comes with healthy competition.
So it’s quite okay to bash Microsoft. You can use or even like their products and bash Microsoft – hell, I know quite a few Windows users who do.
You should rather have said that it’s ok to bash Linux if it’s ok to bash Windows. In fact, it’s not okay to bash either. You can criticize them specifically, e.g. “Windows is less secure on a default install” or “Microsoft’s anti-competitive strategy of integrating apps with the OS causes security issues”.
It’s rather pointless, as both OSes have their own strengths.
However, it’s quite okay to bash Microsoft. And you shouldn’t care to do so even if you’re one of their customers – hey, I own copies of Windows 98, 2000 and Office (though I use that under Linux now). I also have an Xbox and quite a few games. In fact, bashing Microsoft should really only bother you if you work for them, or if you own some of their stock.
I don’t think that’s a real word. I do know, however, that mentioning “GPL” and “Communist*” in the same breath is kinda, well, trolling (as per the true definition, i.e. making provocative statements in the goal of eliciting an emotional response). It’s quite a loaded equation, and not quite an accurate one, either. In fact, one could say that the GPL has as much to do with Christian ethos (i.e. sharing) or with democracy than with Communism. In fact, the GPL is based on copyright law, which in itself does not exist in pure cCmmunism.
In fact, the GPL is more libertarian than anything else. And since you have libertarians on the right (such as anarcho-capitalists) and the left (i.e. Chomsky), it’s misleading to imply that the GPL is somewhat linked to Communism. Heck, do you really see huge corporations such as IBM, Unilever or Daimler-Chrysler as communist sympathizers?
(P.S. bringing politics into these comments section is usually asking for moderation. Just so you know.)
BSD is my definition of freedom, not RMS.
Agreed. While I have few problems with the GPL, I do believe it has hijacked the “definition” of free software.
There are many ways to go about it, not just one.
The GPL may be defining “freedom”, but only “freedom” relative to itself. It’s like saying the Puritans were a kind and loving group of people…As long as you were a Puritan.
In fact, the GPL is more libertarian than anything else.
Again, it’s all relative. Compared to BSD, the GPL is restrictive as hell. “Restriction” is hardly libertarian.
I think that Sun is unwilling to compete at the services level like Red Hat and Novell. This is why they obscure their reliance upon open source (yes, that’s free as in freedom) software. Bottom line is: Sun needs to have a Linux story and in typical Sun fashion their story is doomed to failure by confusing where their expertise lies.
Cheers
The reason people rightly bash RMS is because he, and more annoyingly his minions, troll on boards night and day spewing the same old rant about how the GPL is more free than BSD or Public Domain. How we should be calling it GNU/Linux. How RMS is the father of free software.
Then you have the FSF and it’s pet lawyer claiming that free software is some kind of civil liberties movement. The sad part is there are people that still buy this nonsense. The FSF is really a political entity that tries to disguise itself as some kind of organization for the spread of source code.
If RMS and his kool-aid drinkers want to be consistent then they also call for the free distribution of book text, movies, music. It can all be digital and almost reproducible at 0 cost. They won’t come out and say it though, because then EVERYBODY will come to recognize them as the frauds that they are.
Funny, I always hear that but I Really havn’t seen these trolls in the past 5 years. Instead I see much more of your trolls saying “GPL isnt free its restrictive!” and complaining about people who chose to write thier code in GPL. I also see you guys making baseless clames and basicly trolling.
Sorry, I aint buying your FUD.
Compared to BSD, the GPL is restrictive as hell. “Restriction” is hardly libertarian.
I was saying it was more libertarian than communist. I wasn’t claiming it was the most “libertarian” of licenses. Stop splitting hairs in the hope of starting yet another flame war in these threads.
Note that, even in a libertarian world, there would still be restrictions of some kind. The fact is that BSD license itself imposes some restrictions, and that the GPL and BSD licenses share more similarities than differences, despite the propaganda of anti-GPL zealots. After all, the BSD license is considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.
Lumbergh
The anti-Linux, anti-GPL trolls come out at night, I see. However, before firing up another volley of tired personal attacks and misrepresentations about the GPL and those who support it, you should learn the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. Then you’d understand that your third paragraph is irrelevant and inaccurately reflects the nature of the Free Software Foundation.
Taking your analogy one step further – since, like every other anti-GPL troll, you’re quick to use the BSD to put the GPL in bad light: shouldn’t those who defend the BSD license call not only for the free distribution of books, movies and music, but also for the right to people to use portions of those books, movies and music to make other products that can’t be redistributed…is that what you propose?
You sound like you’ve been drinking SCO/MS’s kool-aid. Interoperabilty problems arise from closed source or proprietary protocols or standards which leads someone to try to reverse engineer a protocol.
Open Standards and Open Source are two different things. Just because something is not open source, does not mean that it does not use open standards. Thus, while Open Source everything would be nice, Open Standards are really what makes or breaks interoperability between software systems.
Schwartz is proving to be an effective leader. I hope that they can reach new markets by leveraging open source infrastructure. I think that Linux has some good will that can not be achieved by a product line, because of all of the things that Schwartz demonstrates that he understands, the support of a competitive environment, the stability of the community and ecosystem that is growing, etc.
I had to frown at the introduction of patents into their product line, because a patent is anti-competitive. And this is the only grey area, and the only thing I hold against Sun Microsystems strategy. I would rather that the industry thrive on competition rather than crimes against humanity. Sun is not the only vendor who supports software patents.
There is one thing that I would like to mention. There is something that Schwartz is not telling us. Vendors have strategies, not just product lines. Schwartz is a deal maker, and he is an excelent observer of the industry. Although some of Sun’s strategy has been revealed, just realize that the upper management has a vision, economics is about making choices that lead to prefered outcomes and it’s about making money, but in order to get what you want, you have to make deals, even Microsoft has to make these deals (at least with the government). There are strategies on the table, and some of the more high level ones are more objective and companies can co-operate to execute them sucessfully.
Maybe one day, Java will be opened under the GPL. Today is not that day. The way that I feel about it is that I think an open source Java would immortalize Java. It would preserve it for the rest of the century. I feel that when it is time for Sun to move on to a new product line, that they should retire Java by releasing it to the open source community by signing it over to the GPL.
Wrong.
PC hardware is notoriously variable. It takes a lot of effort to get a system stable. Linux is a win for Sun – all they have to do is customise a distribution like everyone else.
They don’t have to invest in OS development for x86. That gets paid for by RH, IBM, HP, SUSE etc. 🙂
They can put their $$$ into marketing and value add – development of (1) desktop (2) desktop apps (3) a distributed management platform (4) authentication and authorisation (5) business application stack development (Sun ONE).
There are good reasons to continue Solaris/x86 development for server side work – and it can be done cheaply if you don’t try to adress every white box in the world.
“If RMS and his kool-aid drinkers want to be consistent then they also call for the free distribution of book text, movies, music. It can all be digital and almost reproducible at 0 cost. They won’t come out and say it though, because then EVERYBODY will come to recognize them as the frauds that they are.”
Eben Moglen (“the so-called pet lawyer”), member of the board of directors, does. For example you can read this on his site, or on Groklaw (search for “Harvard Eben Moglen”). Lawrence Lessig, also a lawyer and member of the board of directors, invented the Creative Commons. He also uses it to distribute his book “Free Culture”. They only say so regarding _legal_ implementations; just like they do with the GPL. That’s what the FSF has always done: using the legal environment to create legal platforms.
Funny also, how one makes an analogy of the US constitution (the first amandment iirc) and nobody cares to analyse that instead. Instead, the normal arguments of GPL vs BSD are stated while it is already more than obvious that both allow different paths of Freedom. Both achieve a form of Freedom. Some like #1, others like #2, but there’s no point in argumenting it since it has already been done so many times, including on OSnews.com.
Why not discuss the actual subject? The Groklaw thread is full of interesting analysis. There’s also multiple sources over there which state (including their source) that SUN _will_ replace the Linux kernel + GNU with their Solaris environment.
..will kill Sun. And will do it spectaculary fast. Sometimes I wonder if he actually spends some time on this planet. It will take him 3 quarters of this kind of “visionary” delusional blabling and he and Sun are history. Boy, they were such a nice bunch of guys, with guts and ideas. Ah, nothing lasts forewer.
I guess you didn’t bother to _really_ read my post, but were just hellbent on calling me anti-gpl, anti-linux.
I am neither. I never mentioned anything about not liking the GPL. In fact, I think it has many good purposes. I’m glad the linux kernel is gpl, and I believe it makes sense for things like GCC and for people that want to be able get changes to their code back. What I stated was that when people say that the GPL is _more_ free than say BSD or Public Domain then they are either outright lying or have just fallen for RMS’s redefinition of the word “freedom”.
If I was anti-linux then it would be a bit silly for me to run Gentoo as my primary OS….eh?
and install Slackware on it.
Free as in Freedom…no one cares…what! You must be joking! If you don’t atleast consider a system that will run stable and get the job done close to or as good as a proprietary system for free or nect to nothing with out CALS you are either afriad of change, rich or and idiot.
-nX
I wonder if people aren’t cutting Schwartz much slack because of Sun’s reluctant support of Linux or the fallout from the Sun-MS settlement. Judging from Sun’s history, I don’t think that they’d do a bait-and-switch with the JDS simply to sell more copies of Solaris. The JDS makes perfect sense if we’re talking about a consistent, supportable and low price ennvironment for Joe Business User who doesn’t care what’s running on his computer as long as it’s easy to use and reliable. The point that anything “GNU/Linuxy” is hidden, or rather, not blantantly advertised, is minor issue. I have a cell phone that runs a small Java OS and nowhere does it say “GPL.” I’m sure that the same situation exists with some Linux PDAs and embedded systems. You and I know what the code bases and what copyrights/lefts need to be honored, but end users don’t need nor care about licensing. Transparency – hiding the gory details – means more than you think, especially in a business environment. I think Sun needs to be cut some slack until it’s clearly obvious that they’ve become another MS with MS-like tactics.
What I stated was that when people say that the GPL is _more_ free than say BSD or Public Domain then they are either outright lying or have just fallen for RMS’s redefinition of the word “freedom”.
Duh! Rant, rant, rant. As if we didn’t understood that. It is quite obvious what you are saying and it isn’t anything new either. If you still do not understand the differences between Freedoms and still cannot recognize both licenses give different Freedom’s which are in the advantage of some while in the disadvantage for others, you’re plain ignorant.
The difference between you and me is that i take the different opinions regarding Freedom for granted and accept people in general simply don’t agree on it while you are remaining to go the ad nauseam road in various threads and also the red herring way.
WE KNOW your opinion. Thank you! And it hasn’t got much to do with the whole subject of the thread either.
Nice how you totally avoided responding to my post. The fact that you use Gentoo doesn’t mean you can’t be a troll – and when you make inflammatory remarks such as “RMS and his kool-aid drinkers”, you can expect to be called a troll.
Perhaps you consider both BSD and GPL to be equally free. That certainly didn’t transpire in your post, busy as you were attacking GPL advocates.
A nun, he moos:
As I see it, you are the troll here. Sun is NOT violating the GPL. Not everyone wants or has to toot the Linux horn. Also, not everyone considers GPL ‘Freedoms’ to all that free. Many of us are very logical and see
* public domain, no copyright, most free
* BSD/MIT, copyright, second most free
* ?? other licenses maybe
* GPL, copyright + restrictions, free in some sense of the word but still restricted
Manipulate the english language all you want and spout your definition of ‘free’ all you want, it does not change the above facts. Quit calling everyone who does not worship the GPL a troll!
“Also, not everyone considers GPL ‘Freedoms’ to all that free. Many of us are very logical and see
* public domain, no copyright, most free
* BSD/MIT, copyright, second most free
* ?? other licenses maybe
* GPL, copyright + restrictions, free in some sense of the word but still restricted”
Blablabla habla habla habla. That was already said. If you look futher than your nose long is, GPL code remains Free whereas BSD/PD/MIT can be used in proprietary software. Proprietary software, is far from Free (as in that the source is available, the source is distributable, and other Freedoms). You knew all that, right? If you only understood it, then you’d also understand that we’re discussing different aspects of Freedom where some have other values than others. You don’t even have to agree with the other side being “the best definition” or “the future”. Time will tell. You only have to accept that there’s other opinions on it too, and that in one aspect they’re most likely right whereas in another aspect you’re most likely right. That’s all! Can you try to accept that? Wouldn’t be so hard, would it? These rants here won’t change the opinion of the other side’s advocates as much as your side of the advocates won’t change. So why do it anyway?
These arguments are also nothing new for any BSD or GPL advocate. The people who made up their mind understand both aspects. Because you basically have to when you want to create a NPOV for yourself. Given the arguments here are purely flat and ignore the arguments of the other side (imo mainly from the BSD/Proprietary zealots), the discussion is just that. Flat, pointless, and an old movie which has been played all over the Net numerous times. USELESS (and off-topic).
That said, there’s always some group of people who tend to fuck the discussion up in a Linux thread, followed by the people who reply to their rants, trolls, strawmen’s and other rechewed arguments. A shame… for the quality of this site. Why not discuss the topic instead?
I think Jonathan Schwartz is a class-A dickhead, who is going to lead Sun into a corner they cant escape from and then most likely get hired by Microsoft, but I think that PJ in this case has no justification for her attacks on Sun.
The JDS is a fine product, and will stand or fall on its merits. As long as Sun complies with the GPL, they are free to market, promote, sell or distribute their product in any way they see fit.
This is a stupid storm in a teacup over a non-issue, and I honestly can’t understand what PJ has a problem with – If Sun thinks Linux is the best platform for it’s desktop offering, thats great.
Obviously, they must comply with the license they received the software under, but from that point on, it’s a free country.
Me, trolling? Surely you jest! First, in order to prove your credibility, show me exactly where I said that Sun violated the GPL…What’s that? You can’t? Of course you can’t – I never claimed such a thing.
Okay, now that we’ve established that you make unsupported claims, let me answer a few more of your points.
I don’t ask that people “worship” the GPL. Heck, I don’t even have anything against proprietary and closed-source software (though I don’t think OSes should be proprietary).
What I have a problem is with people constantly misrepresenting the GPL to further their own political agenda. For example, you claim that GPL is “copyright + restrictions”. Despite your claim to be “logical”, that’s an incorrect statement: software covered by the GPL grants additional rights compared to plain copyright. Normally, you can’t redistribute copyrighted work (you can make a single copy for fair use).
In any case, your statement is misleading because it fails to mention that the BSD also has restrictions (though they are different than the GPL’s).
Both the GPL and the BSD are free licenses. Saying that one is more free than the other is irrelevant, as they both give the user more freedom than basic copyright (and both are compatible). The true difference between the two has nothing to do with freedom, but rather with the fact that the GPL is a copyleft license, while the BSD isn’t.
Now, I suggest that you read up on the definitions of “logical” and “troll” before you use these loaded words in debate. You’ll look less of a fool.
@dpi
Whatever bud. Facts are facts. We all understand the licenses. You can try to cloud the issue all you want by claiming GPL protects freedoms. There will be always be voices like mine stating it how it is. People need to understand the licenses, not be bamboozeled by preachy ‘4 freedoms’ text. Just the facts suffice for 99% of the population.
@A nun, he moos
Me, trolling? Surely you jest! First, in order to prove your credibility, show me exactly where I said that Sun violated the GPL…What’s that? You can’t? Of course you can’t – I never claimed such a thing.
I never said you claimed sun violated the GPL. But the latter part of this thread is a sun bashing fest. I’m simply pointing out that Sun has violated no laws, contributes to open source projects, has released large amounts of their own code as open source, and therefore you people should not be bashing them. Have all you bashers contributed as much as Sun to open source? I think not. If anything you detract from it with your ranting.
For example, you claim that GPL is “copyright + restrictions”. Despite your claim to be “logical”, that’s an incorrect statement: software covered by the GPL grants additional rights compared to plain copyright. Normally, you can’t redistribute copyrighted work (you can make a single copy for fair use).
Oh you nitpicker. Fine, I’ll revise my list:
* public domain, no copyright, free in every sense
* BSD(new)/MIT, copyright, completely free distribution and use for whatever purpose (second most free)
* ?? other licenses maybe
* GPL, copyright + redistribution and use rights with some restrictions (not as free as the above two)
Happy?
In any case, your statement is misleading because it fails to mention that the BSD also has restrictions (though they are different than the GPL’s).
Umm, what restrictions would those be? The lack of having copyright? Or are you referring to the old advertising clause that no one uses anymore? Give me a break, the BSD/MIT license is NOTHING like the GPL in terms of restrictions. That’s why many people dont use it. It’s not less popular because it’s the SAME for crying out loud.
I never said you claimed sun violated the GPL.
Nice try. From your post:
As I see it, you are the troll here. Sun is NOT violating the GPL.
Technically, you didn’t claim it, but putting these two sentences together amounts to the same thing. Then again, you go on to say:
therefore you people should not be bashing them.
Again, you lump me in with others who have bashed Sun, even though I never did. You can’t weasel out of it this time – you’re responding to me and you’re saying “you”.
Umm, what restrictions would those be?
“Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.”
Whether you like it or not, these are restrictions. Sure, they are rather benign, and they do permit unscrupulous software vendors to plunder the work done by others to create non-free code. That’s basically the only “freedom” lacking from the GPL/LGPL – the freedom to exploit other people’s work without contributing back.
I’m sorry, but who fscking cares about that particular freedom?! Do you spend days lamenting that you do not have the freedom to walk into people’s homes and steal their belongings? Do you feel less free because you just can’t go around and shoot people if you want to? May I suggest you read Isaiah Berlin’s definition of the two types of freedom?
Give me a break, the BSD/MIT license is NOTHING like the GPL in terms of restrictions. That’s why many people dont use it. It’s not less popular because it’s the SAME for crying out loud.
Where did you get your figures that the BSD license is less/more popular than the GPL? The fact is that, for developers, the GPL is a better license than the BSD license because it ensures that no one will use their work to produce non-free code. In fact, I’d say that the GPL is probably more popular than the BSD license. I see and use new GPL software all the time – I rarely see new BSD-licenses software.
Then again if you have links to reliable statistics I’d be curious to see them.
“There will be always be voices like mine stating it how it is. People need to understand the licenses, not be bamboozeled by preachy ‘4 freedoms’ text. Just the facts suffice for 99% of the population.”
(Emphasis added)
The first statement is obviously a fallacy.
The second one isn’t backed up with facts. Making it also a fallacy IMO.
That’s all. You still don’t get it. You still do not want to understand that we will never agree on it, you do not wish to agree there are different views (“stating it how it is”) and still do not seem to agree the discussion is pointless.
I am done with this autistic junk.
Again, you lump me in with others who have bashed Sun, even though I never did. You can’t weasel out of it this time – you’re responding to me and you’re saying “you”.
Blah blah blah. My command of the english languange is somewhat lacking, I’m not an english major. I clarified my statement and if that is not good enough for you then it’s your problem, not mine.
Whether you like it or not, these are restrictions.
Sure, you can look at them that way if you really want. It doesn’t change the fact that the GPL is more restrictive in a very non-trivial way. This is what BSD license advocates like to point out, so that people know about them. If you are allowed to express your opinion on the GPL being oh so good and free, then BSD people can also highlight the extra restrictions the GPL imposes.
I’m sorry, but who fscking cares about that particular freedom?
I do, as do many others do. There are many reasons one might want to use a BSD style license. For example, it’s excellent at promoting a standard such as TCP/IP. It’s also excellent for libraries like the STL and Boost C++ libraries. I don’t write GPL code. Therefore GPL libraries are usesless to me and any others like me, who do not write GPL code. Such a library may as well be proprietary for all I care. And you will come back with “oh but the LGPL”. And to that I simply point out that some libraries, like the STL and Boost, are mainly if not completely implemented in header files. So much for the dynamic linking required by the LGPL!
Finally, some of us are really altruistic, and want our code to be used an usefull to people, regardless of whether we get anything back or not. Make no mistake about it, this matters to some people. It’s fine if it doesn’t matter to you, I really don’t care to *convert* you or anything, but someone is not a troll just because it matters to THEM.
In fact, I’d say that the GPL is probably more popular than the BSD license. I see and use new GPL software all the time – I rarely see new BSD-licenses software.
Wow, you agree with me! How frightening! By the way, some BSD advocates, like GPL advocates, would like to see more BSD licensed software. It is not trolling to point out the difference between the BSDL and the GPL. Often it is simply in the hopes that someone who does not understand the difference (and groups BSD in with GPL as simply free software) will at least think about it, and in the best case maybe even write some BSD software!
Blah blah blah. My command of the english languange is somewhat lacking, I’m not an english major.
That’s no excuse. English isn’t even my first language! The fact is that you may have corrected your first statement but then made an equally incorrect one and once again misattributed me words and intentions.
It doesn’t change the fact that the GPL is more restrictive in a very non-trivial way.
It’s only non-trivial if you want to close down the source. To the overwhelming majority of users and developers, such a difference is indeed quite trivial. Irrelevant, even.
If you are allowed to express your opinion on the GPL being oh so good and free, then BSD people can also highlight the extra restrictions the GPL imposes.
So you can only highlight the BSD’s strength in negative terms? It’s not sufficient to say that the BSD is a great license for certain types of software? Is it necessary to start yet another GPL vs. BSD flamewar? I’d tend to say that, if BSD is that good a license, then it can stand on its own merit, without the need for its supporters to resort to attacking other licenses.
Finally, some of us are really altruistic, and want our code to be used an usefull to people, regardless of whether we get anything back or not.
Usefulness of code isn’t defined by the ability to make it non-free. It is defined, as the word indicates, by how useful it is to those who use it.
For libraries, there’s the LGPL. And citing some exceptional cases as an argument against the LGPL is, well, weak. That’s one of the fundamental laws of debate: you don’t base an broad argument on exceptions.
It is not trolling to point out the difference between the BSDL and the GPL.
It is when you use those differences to imply that one is “freer” (and therefore better) than the other by repeating the same old BSD vs. GPL flamewar arguments, then yes, you are trolling.
Someone else said it best: both the GPL and the BSD are free licenses – they just cater to different subset of what constitutes freedom. BSD offers others the freedom to make modified code closed-source, while the GPL gives the developer the freedom to release code that will remain open. So, if you can argue that the GPL takes away a very specific freedom, you have to admit that the BSDL does as well – just not the same one.
Both BSD and GPL are free software – get over it. The difference is that the GPL is copyleft, while BSD is not. If you really want to argue about BSD/GPL (and, like other bitter BSD advocates, I can clearly see you do), then argue on that instead of making inflammatory claims such as “BSD is more free than GPL.”
Autistic junk, indeed. I’m out of here.
A nun, he moos: while the GPL gives the developer the freedom to release code that will remain open.
Which is also true of the BSD license. Closing the source of your modifications doesn’t close the source of the original. <grins>
Anyway…
The whole discussion overall was interesting.
You’re right, of course, which is why both the BSD and GPL are free licenses. What I should have written was that “the GPL gives the developer the freedom to release code that will not be incorporated into closed-source software.”
Sun have learned absolutely nothing from the last twenty years, and they are flushing their business down the toilet. This company has no direction, no idea of what it is working on, obviously hasn’t done a SWOT analysis when they made losses and made that deal and have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Microsoft certainly knows Sun extremely well – chumps. Monkey boy must have went away and did his monkey dance that day.
Sun is now officially worth less than shrapnel. They are f-i-n-i-s-h-e-d, and it cannot be long before they are declared bankrupt.