Sun's Schwartz Attacks GPL

jskelly writes "Sun Micro President Jonathan Schwartz attacked the GPL at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco yesterday.Other than the same old arguments (you can't make it proprietary later) he adds that it imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world" -- but fails to mention that the converse is also true: the wealthiest nation in the world is similarly, under the GPL, forced to "disgorge all its IP back to the developing nations" as well. Duh!"

ahh..

[by Anonymous Coward]

..i see your swartz is less open than mine..

Nothing wrong with hating the GPL...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just don't use GPL'd code and write it all yourself.

stupid CEO, don't like it? don't use it

[Thud457 (234763)]

I think Van Gogh should have stipulated that all his unsold paintings be burnt after his death. I mean, if he didn't profit from them, why the hell should he share them with an ungrateful world? Why on Earth would anybody do anything unless they stand to gain from it? You'd have to be a really stupid fucking schmuck to give anything to the world for free.

Re:stupid CEO, don't like it? don't use it

[by Anonymous Coward]

I agree totally, and I will say more. I believe a major cause of the lack of respect for Intellectual Property in the US (at least) are public libraries, and to a lesser extent public museums and parks. While these institutions are certainly legal under current law, what impression is one to gain from them? Why, none other than the idea that we all have the right to enjoy other peoples' property, any time we feel like it, for FREE! How can we allow children to be brought up with such an un-American belief? We need a call to action, and I propose that laws aren't enough. We must have a Constitutional Amendment, banning public libraries, public museums, and abolishing the national and state park systems, with the land to be sold for $1 an acre to companies equipped to develop that resource. There can be no genuine argument against this, as it is for the public good; just as the civic-minded citizens of Kansas (where I reside) have just enacted an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, also for the public good. This decision is now being celebrated by church ministers across the state, also as it should be. I realize some readers of Slashdot are not Christians, but to those among you who do not follow the Lord and live in immorality I say only, make no mistake -- you are a tiny, tiny minority of the general population. To the rest of us I say, be vigilant! We may all sometimes feel an impulse toward tolerance or sharing, but we must be strong. These deviant urges are not part of the American Way, and worse, certainly not part of the Christian Life.

High cost to Depevoling Countries

[ospirata (565063)]

A Developing Country like Brazil had two choices: - Buy proprietary software and do not get knowledge to develop its own technoligy later, thus always buy techonology or... - Get free open source software, develop its own techonology and be "forced" to return its enhancements to Developed countries. First choise make you a slave forever. Second makes you a partner.

Re:Nothing wrong with hating the GPL...

[n0-0p (325773)]

You're kidding right? The MPL tri-license includes the MPL, GPL, and LGPL. All of the Mozilla apps are distributed this way; the MPL portion allows for certain proprietary binary components like the talkback debugger and installer in the binary only distributions. The CDDL is *similar* to the MPL portion, but is not compatible with either the GPL or LGPL so it lacks that whole tri-license aspect.
Nice to hear you're happy with OpenSolaris, but please stop spreading mis-information

Re:Nothing wrong with hating the GPL...

[null etc. (524767)]

So tell me again why should I spend my money developing software and just give it away?

I hate to say this, but if you can't see the value in developing software for free, you're probably not a very talented developer.

This may be a misguided conclusion, but I've noticed that brilliant programmers are much more likely to contribute their software to open source, rather than try to develop it commercially.

Re:Nothing wrong with hating the GPL...

[ajs (35943)]

"Don't you just love it when the Linux Bigots think ecveryone should be in business to give away all they develop with their money."

Actually, the vast majority of those of us who are (and have been for nearing two decades) fans of the GPL are that way because we don't particularly care about software.

I'm a programmer, but I've only rarely worked for actual software companies. In most non-software companies, you hire programmers to make the things that off-the-shelf software doesn't provide possible.

For such efforts, the GPL is ideal, and I've seen companies benifit both from using established GPL projets as a starting point and from starting new GPL projects.

Re:Release src only if publically release binary

[GigsVT (208848)]

but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.

Then you are violating the GPL. You can't sell it without distributing it, unless you have them using it on your servers somehow and never sent them any binaries. (i.e. the whole dot-bomb application service provider business model)

Re:I don't see how that's possible

[srleffler (721400)]

The fact that the sale is 'private' isn't the point. The issue is that you're only obligated to give the source to the people to whom you give/sell binaries. If you give the binaries to five customers, you have to release the source to those five customers. If you release the binaries to whoever wants them, you have to do likewise with the source. Simple.

As others have pointed out, the customers receiving the binaries and source are free to redistribute them, and probably cannot be constrained from doing so by any non-disclosure agreement..

Spaceballs?

[sterno (16320)]

Did anybody look at the headline for this and immediately think that Sun was being run by Dark Helmet?

Re:Spaceballs?

[Tackhead (54550)]

MCNEALY: Yes. I am the keeper of a greater magic. A power known throughout the universe, known as....
ESR: Open Source?
MCNEALY: No. The Schwartz.
RMS: The Schwartz?
MCNEALY: Yes. The Schwartz. [He holds his Schwartz ring. His is different than the ring BILL GATES has.]
ESR: But, McNealy, what is this place? What is that you do here?
MCNEALY: Licensing.
ESR: Licensing? What's that? (Keep out of this, RMS!)
MCNEALY: Licensing. Come. I'll show. Walk this way. Take a look. We put the company's copyright on everything. Licensing. Licensing. Where the real money from the software is made. Sun-the-Server, Solaris-the Operating System, UltraSPARC-the Pizza box, Sun-the-dot-in-dot-com. (The analysts loved that one.) Last, but not least, Sun-the-Doll. Me!
[pulls on the string]
DOLL: "May the Schwartz be with you!"
MCNEALY: It ain't the Steve Ballmer Monkeyboy Dancebot, but it sells. May the Schwartz be with you!

All about maintining the Status Quo

[Striikerr (798526)]

"he adds that it imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world""

I suppose he would prefer to see the developing nations disgorging their money back to the wealthiest nation in the world's private companies (via licensing costs), thus ensuring this status remains in effect.

Re:All about maintining the Status Quo

[gormanly (134067)]

Exactly. Which nations have most to lose if knowledge is shared freely - those with lots of "IP" or those with less?

"IP" is simply ideas with a price tag, which ultimately slows down the speed of human development in return for providing shiny things for those of us with too much already.

But I think Jonanthan Schwartz knows that...

Ha!

[by Anonymous Coward]

This from one of the biggest advocates for the non-immigrant guest worker programs !!!

His motto was "All your cheap labor belong to us". Not it's, "All your property belong to us".

What a clown.

Developing nations don't give a fuck about "intellectual property". Just look at the US when it was a young country.

Re:Ha!

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

I think he's referring to the fact that the US was pretty much the number one copyright offender in the world when they got started. The British were flipping and the Americans just flipped them off. It was only when the US started having significant developments of their own that they started to care about "IP"

Re:All about maintining the Status Quo

[stealth.c (724419)]

Yup. It seems to me that whenever people have a beef with the GPL, it's because it keeps the playing field from being tilted in whichever way they feel it should be tilted.

The GPL is an equalizer, and puts software back into the realm where it began and where I think it always belonged: cooperative science.

Poor baby.

[Pants75 (708191)]

Notice how the big IP companies always bitch and moan about the GPL? Love it!

Does anyone see some light at the end of the tunnel for Sun?

It seems to me that they are in several type of trouble with no idea of how to get straight again.

Just my 2 pen'eth Pete

Re:Poor baby.

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

Does anyone see some light at the end of the tunnel for Sun?

Netcraft just confirmed it. It's a train.

Re:Poor baby.

[qbzzt (11136)]

Hi,

Notice how the big IP companies always bitch and moan about the GPL? Love it!

I'd say IBM is a pretty big IP company, and it seems to be OK with the GPL. Sure, some IBM products may not use GPLed code because of legal restrictions, but that's different from bitching about it.

CEOs who bitch about external factors are not doing their real job, which is adapting to those factors and/or changing them. CEOs who bitch about not being able to use the fruits of a volunteer effort for their company's gain should be working on finding a way to MAKE money instead.

Bye,
Ori

Re:Poor baby.

[pegr (46683)]

Oh it's better than that... He's flat wrong and he knows it.

You can certainly make proprietary software out of GPL code. Your code. If it's your code, you can release it under any license you want! You just can't make proprietary code out of someone else's GPL code. Now why would you think you have any rights to code you didn't write?

Hmm...

[0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236)]

Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Interesting. The world's hottest economy right now is China, which has a poor record when it comes to IP. Other emerging nations, such as India, Indonesia and Brazil also have poor IP records.

No, IP is not needed to pull nations up. It would be nice, but it's clearly not a requirement.

IP to pull you up

[DickBreath (207180)]

Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

I think Schwartz misunderstands. IP isn't used to pull you up. It is used to push others down. Although I can see how he could confuse one with the other.

When you are one of the ones being pushed down, the distinction becomes more obvious.

Re:Hmm...

[bigpat (158134)]

Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

The GPL is an exercise of intelectual property rights, not a subversion of those rights.

"We're Sun"

[geomon (78680)]

And we are working *hard* to drive ourselves into obscurity.

Sun has lead the field for so many years that they really believe the crap they publish in the trade press.

It is sad to see a technology giant succumbing to what could qualify as a form of corporate Parkinson's disease.

Sun's behavior lately

[Infonaut (96956)]

I don't know if it is by design or not, but it seems that over the past few months Sun has been trying to get itself back in the news primarily through commentary about the state of computing, the relevance of Open Source, etc.. Now that they've reached detente with Microsoft, in order to re-establish their relevance, they feel they have to attack the very parties that they should be bolstering. The impramatur they built up during their glory years means nothing to younger people in the IT crowd, and by bashing on the GPL, they're simply telling people that they just don't grok the big picture.

smart people being stupid

[Camel Pilot (78781)]

Quote 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

Why do these supposedly smart people Balmer, Gates, Lyons, McBride, Schwartz, etc. of the world always sound so stupid when they attept to attack the GPL? They always make it sould like the GPL stipulation to give back your improvements as a nasty surprise at the bottom of the cracker jack box.

Could I not also say:

academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate propriety software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to pay royalities back to the companies that licences their IP

evil propriety software evil evil...

Re:smart people being stupid

[Chromodromic (668389)]

Why do these supposedly smart people Balmer, Gates, Lyons, McBride, Schwartz, etc. of the world always sound so stupid when they attept to attack the GPL?

Well, I don't think they do sound stupid at all. I think, very frequently, they sound pretty smart.

I've seen so many comments on Slashdot and in other places which seem to indicate by their content that the commenter believes greed is limited to only the United States. I mean, I've seen several comments here which point out that the flow of IP under

Better xample

[Ironsides (739422)]

Better example would be having to openly publish government funded research.

Christ Schwartz has some balls

[killmenow (184444)]

You know this guy understands the GPL. You just KNOW it. The problem is exactly as the submitter says, the GPL levels the playing field. That's Schwartz' real problem with it. It's the same thing that scares the bejesus out of most proprietary software vendors. Not that they'll ever come right out and just admit the real problem: but, your honor, it's devastating to my business model!

It always amazes me when they bitch and moan about the way things should be when commercial software manufacturers make up only a small fraction of the software development world. Most people developing software are doing so for internal I.T. departments for internal projects. They benefit the most from Open Source.

But vendors like Sun and Microsoft want us to remain in the dark ages suckling on their poisoned teat when the world can now ween itself of that sour milk and move on to the glory of free beer.

Oh, wait...I'm mixing metaphors...mmm, beer...what was I on about?

In one ear and out the other.

[MindStalker (22827)]

Wow, in one breath he talks about how GPL is bad because it doesn't allow you to keep your changes secret. He also talks about how he will not open source java for fear of forking. Then he says that companies like IBM who help Linux but don't open up all their products are "hypocrits".
Wow this guy really needs help from the cluestick.

No worries.

[michael path (94586)]

Our Schwartz is bigger than the Sun's.

GPL is not always appropriate for all uses

[Jim_Maryland (718224)]

I realize I'll get a bit of hate on this, but the GPL license does scare away companies that rely on intellectual property (IP). My employer has stepped up it's free open source software awareness lately to avoid inadvertantly losing IP that it doesn't wish to give away under a GPL like license. The GPL has been labelled as a "viral license" in some company policies I've seen because it really does open everything up in most cases. The GPL does exactly what it should though in promoting free open source software and it's usage just needs to be carefully evaluated before using in a project where you wish to keep all/portions of code closed. The license itself shouldn't be attacked but education of it's requirements (which the FAQ does pretty well) must be understood if thinking of using GPL source.

Re:GPL is not always appropriate for all uses

[maxpublic (450413)]

This is a "no shit" comment. You use somebody else's code, you have to labor under the copyright restrictions they've placed on it. That's *always* true and any company that rips off somebody else's code without complying with the copyright is just another thief in the night, whether it's done purposefully or because the management is too fucking incompetent to do its job.

The GPL is no different from any other copyright restriction in this regard.

Max

Re:GPL is not always appropriate for all uses

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

I think his point is that some open source projects would be more widely adopted and supported without the GPL

You mean the way the BSDs are so much more widely adopted than Linux?

Re:GPL is not always appropriate for all uses

[killmenow (184444)]

Yes, the GPL does harm open source. After all, look at how Linux lingers in relative obscurity [slashdot.org] while the three BSDs are the darling of mass media.

After all, I was just watching a repeat of The Dave Chappelle Show last night on which there was a bit called "PopCopy" about a Kinko's-like copy store and how to be uncooperative to customers. In the bit, he mentions BSD, right? Oh, wait, no...he says Linux. Why? Because Linux is mainstream and it wouldn't have gotten where it is today without the GPL.

I think saying the GPL hurts open source is ridiculous. On a case-by-case basis, you might be able to effectively demonstrate where another license would be better and thankfully, there are other licenses available in those instances. But the GPL is a vital part of the success of Open Source software.

What harms Open Source is Microsoft embedding the BSD TCP/IP stack but how many end users ever heard of BSD? And Apple half-assing their cooperation with Open Source to make OS X. How many end users running OS X ever heard of BSD even though their very OS is based upon it? But the chances they've heard of Linux is much higher. Appple, Microsoft, and the BSD license they've taken advantage of to take other people's work without compensation has arguably harmed Open Source. But, hey, the people who put that stuff out there under the BSD license did that of their own free will and more power to them. If it weren't for that, we might not have a standardized TCP/IP stack today...God knows if Microsoft had to write their own they'd have probably fucked it up entirely.

(imho)

Asymmetry

[tfb (49770)]

He's quite probably right about the developing world.

The owner of the copyright is free to license it however they like. In particular they can do the standard dual-licensing trick that is done by people like sleepycat, with a GPLd version which is free as well as a more liberal one, which you pay for. Other people are not free to do this.

Most code will (initially, anyway) originate in the developed world. People in the developing world are poor, and will therefore very likely use it under the GPL, and therefore contribute changes back to the developed world (and to the developing world of course). Users in the developed world, who are generally richer, can avoid doing this by paying for a liberal version.

This would not happen with a BSD-style license, for instance.

Obrigado

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

You don't have to GPL apps you distribute, just because they run on a GPL'd OS, or interop with GPL'd apps. Opening one's source is an opportunity, not an obligation, to get communities of coders to use and improve your code. The GPL obligations are perfectly balanced with their benefits, even though some benefits are unencumbered by any obligations.

Disingenuous

[redelm (54142)]

Anytime people invoke objects of sympathy (third world nations, various underclasses), I get immediately suspicious. If the arguement is good, it is good without sympathy support.

In this case, SUN is seriously misquoting the GPL. Deliberately, I fear. Nothing in the GPL requires general publication -- giving away IP. The only thing required is that you give users source. If there are many users, it amounts to general publication. But a lot of code is _not_ general, but just for one firm. They get source (as they should, having paid for the work), but are very unlikely to publish it generally. The only thing the GPL really attacks is per-seat licencing. Co-incidentally, this is a big part of Sun's revenue stream.

Ignorance of development economics

[TheSync (5291)]

This is yet another in a long line of non-economists saying stupid and ignorant things about development economics.

People in developing countries who use GPL have priced-in the potential costs of loss of their IP rights versus the potential savings from using GPL products or advantages to using GPL products.

Of course, in many developing countries, the concept of IP rights may not even exist...which can be part of the reason they are still "developing".

The GPL says...

[IGnatius T Foobar (4328)]

One of the most important things people forget about the GPL is that Section 5 reads thusly:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.

Nobody is forcing Mr. Schwartz to make use of GPL software. We in the open source community like the GPL because it's fair. You want to use all that code out there, for free? Share and enjoy. But you have to play by our rules. You don't get to enjoy the benefits of the GPL without also taking on its responsibilities.

That's why Sun (and Microsoft) love the BSD license so much ... you can take, take, take and not have to give back anything. Sun, unfortunately, is not currently in a position where they can begin dictating the rules. If they want "Open" Solaris to be a successful open source OS then they're going to have to start playing by conventional open source rules. Sun is in no position to change the rules.

huh?

[deego (587575)]

On the contrary, Mr. Schwarz, it is the developing nations that suffer most from the IP menace.

First, they and their companies don't have enough infrastructure to take out patents on every ancient recipe or herb they have used. That is why you see US companies patenting ancient herbs from India (with minor mods) -- that came across a ridiculous joke when it first happened, but now it is so much more common that it is not even funny.

Second, AIDS and other drugs would be much cheaper and more easily available for the dying in Africa.

Isn't it true that developed nations like US consider IP to be among their primary products?

Isn't it true that most patents are taken out by companies in the developed world?

Considering all this, how can anyone sincerely believe that "IP" helps developing nations more? And that a copyleft would therefore, harm them more?

No surprise

[rewt66 (738525)]

We live in a world where truth is a stranger. Spin is king. "Seeing both sides of an issue" is dead, and "saying whatever will get people to do what you want" is running out of control, like Godzilla in Tokyo.

Hello, truth? Are you out there? Come back... we miss you.

They are under no such obligation!

[91degrees (207121)]

They're not obliged to use GPL code.

They're not obliged to release the software if they do use it (e.g. for internal projects).

Since they can get it for free, the amount they receive is probably greater than the cost to them.

They have choice in the matter. As much choice as whether or not to use Solaris. And personally, I think a lot of developing nations are going to be alot happier about giving "IP" away to the richest nations in the world than giving money to the richest nations in the world.

Wanting stuff for free so you can sell it

[Vicegrip (82853)]

Without any obligation to give anything back. Yep, and you're all damned communists for not wanting to support a free ride for Sun.

His crying for the third-world is doubly laughable hogwash since it ignores completely that the GPL works in two directions and in the same way for each. Then it ignores that it is the insanely expensive nature of western software that makes much of our vaunted technology inaccessible to them to begin with.

Finally, as we've done at my company, if you really want to use GPLed code why don't you try purchasing a different license from its developer. They might not be interested, of course, or it might not be possible due to multiple copyright owners, but a number of interesting open source projects do dual-license. It's a nice arrangement: developer gets a nice wad of cash and continues to own their code and work on it and the company gets its product done faster and consequently they get to the market faster.

I love Sun...

[TheLinuxWarrior (240496)]

Really I do...

But DAMMMIT!!! They have got to start keeping these people on mahogany row quiet.

That seems to be Sun's biggest problem at the moment. Allowing these people to just shoot from the hip in public.

It really turns a lot of people in the open source community away from what is actually a very open source friendly vendor.

Bad summary!

[standards (461431)]

Other than the same old arguments (you can't make it proprietary later)

This is incorrect. Of course you can make your GPL'd code proprietary if you decide to retain copyright ownership of your IP. You may and can release your code as GPL, and later release it as closed-source, proprietary work.

Of course, you can't license someone else's IP. That's a different ball of wax. Exactly like I can't license Michael Jackson's Thriller album to EMI.

GPL imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world"

Again, this is incorrect to the point where it's either a gross misquote, or complete lack of understanding of IP.

The GPL does not in any way coerce any non-GPL license into the GPL. There may be financial benefits to licensing a product under the GPL license. On the flip side, there may be financial benefits to not license a product under the GPL. There is absolutely no obligation, preditorially or otherwise, to license your own IP under the GPL. The only exception is if you've agreed to a contract which stipulates that you must release your work under the GPL - and clearly agreeing to such a contract implies that there is some advantage to you to do so.

So in a nutshell, this is not an issue. And the fact that no cases were described suggests that this is just can't happen.

Anti-GPL is Anti-Free-Market

[rewinn (647614)]

The Free Market is all about people freely setting whatever price they want, and taking their chances on the outcome.

No-one is forced to use the GPL. Under the GPL, contributors voluntarily set the price of their contribution (at "free") and take their chance freely on somehow making a living. So what's the problem?

If Third-World nations, or individuals decide to take their chance, it's probably because they figure the alternatives don't work to their advantage. They may be right, they may be wrong, but it's really up to them to make the call.

Some you win, some you lose .... so why does Sun sing the blues?

Please stop giving credit to the wrong movement.

[jbn-o (555068)]

The ZDNet article headline reads "Sun criticizes popular open-source license". Calling the GNU General Public License an "open-source" license is ahistorical and gives credit to the wrong movement, hiding the name of the real author of the license and the name of the movement for which the license was written.

By calling the GPL an "open source" license, the open source movement is allowed to grab credit for a trivial bit of work: constructing a set of rules which allow the GPL to be given the Open Source Initiative's imprimateur. This is nothing compared to writing the GPL and starting the free software movement.

The GPL was written many years before the OSI started. Nobody who would form the OSI wrote the GPL. The GPL was written by the FSF (most notably, RMS, who gets far too little credit for his work here on Slashdot). The OSI has dismissed software freedom [gnu.org] for a message which does not preserve user's software freedoms (for instance, the open source definition does not guarantee a user's privacy--the OSI approved the early revisions of the Apple Public Source License which required publication and notification of a central authority upon changing APSL-covered software in most instances. The FSF did not give its imprimateur to the APSL v1.x revisions, holding out until Apple changed the license in what would become the v2.x revisions.).

Let's give credit where credit is due. I think just as RMS tells us (repeatedly [gnu.org]) that GCC is a free software program, not an open source program [com.com] because it misstates the authorship and reason why the program was written (RMS was the initial author of GCC which he wrote to provide software freedom for GNU), we ought to give the author and intentions of the GPL proper mention by calling it a free software license. That cannot be done by calling it an open source license.

Duh

[The Cisco Kid (31490)]

"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."

Thats the whole *POINT*. People who license their work under GPL specifically intend for this, and if they refuse to permit their work to be used in a proprietary work, they have every right to make the restriction. Its called share and share alike.

Why should any corp have a right to take someone else work, that they obtained for free, and use it in their proprietary for-profit product, against that persons will? You dont have that right for code developed by anyone else thats *NOT* open source, you (usually) dont even get to *see* the source, let alone even get to consider including it in your own project. GPL isnt taking anything away, its granting lots of rights that you wouldnt otherwise have, but its specifically *not* granting the right to use GPL'd code in a project, and then not give the same rights to others that the GPL gave you. Its 100% fair, which I suppose I can understand how software corps dont like that - they like it when they can have an unfair advantage.