Sun Spokesman Says "We Screwed Up On Open Source"

An anonymous reader sends along a video from Builder AU, in which Sun's chief open source officer Simon Phipps describes 2001-2002 as 'a period where Sun 'screwed up' in their dealings with the open source community. Phipps says that Sun is trying to remedy the situation with the open sourcing of Java, Solaris, and the rest of Sun's software."

Never too late

Thank you Sun for all the great products that you have open sourced. Unlike your competitors, you have outsourced your crown jewels.

Re:Never too late

And I really, truly hope it works out for them. I hate for it to go the wrong way...

Re:Never too late

Probably because they are an UNIX company at the end, their track record is better than that of Novell. SUN is closer to the core of FOSS community. Also this is not the first time they admit a mistake, which takes some balls to do in IT industry. It was really appreciated (by me at least) when they switched from SunOS to Solaris and it was not just the name that was changed. I hope Novell would take the clue one day...

Re:Never too late

Probably because they are an UNIX company at the end, their track record is better than that of Novell.

Perhaps you have heard of things like openSUSE, the build service, KDE, GNOME, the Linux kernel and several other things.
http://en.opensuse.org/Novell_Supported_Projects [opensuse.org] for a list

Re:Never too late

you're saying that has a high percentage of Latter Day Saints among its employees? Or are you being ironic?

Re:Never too late

I'm confused. What did Novell do? I'm not talking 8 years ago. What did they do today? Signed a sweetheart deal with Microsoft to get some inside poop on Windows tech to deliver some compatibility to Linux. Wow that is horrible. Ya they were trying to do what the EU forced Microsoft to do. Sun is rotten too... because back in 'Nam ... for christ sakes people ... get over it. These companies are delivering massive amounts of resources to the OSS community. DO NOT WHINE ABOUT IT! I understand if they do something you feel is morally and/or religiously wrong, by all means do not participate in the matter. But call me a troll but I think its ridiculous and stupid to look a gift horse in the mouth. Also note: Fanatical fanboys make no difference to the scheme of anything other than everyone's annoyance levels.

GPL zfs

Phipps says that Sun is trying to remedy the situation with the open sourcing of Java, Solaris, and the rest of Sun's software."

GPLing ZFS would go a long way with me!

Re:GPL zfs

> GPLing ZFS would go a long way with me!

Prepare to be surprised.

Re:GPL zfs

I think anyone who has attempted to legally link proprietary drivers, video codecs with the Linux kernel would understand some of GPL's limitations. The fact that GPL can take from so many licenses (without necessarily exporting) doesn't automagically make it the best license.

CDDL is based on MPL which has an explicit patent protection clause (bring a patent suit against another CDDL licensee and you lose all CDDL rights)

The fact that (besides Java), Sun hasn't released much GPL code should not cause us to ignore significant contributions by Sun to the opensource community. According to a E.U. study on The economic impacts of free and opensource software [europa.eu], Sun contributed 312 million Euro's worth of FOSS which amounts to over 51000 person months. This was 44% of all corporate contributions to FOSS. The next highest contributor was IBM with 13% then Red Hat with 8%. The rest SuSE, Netscape, AT&T... don't even add up to Sun's contribution. And this study came out before Java was GPL'd.

Re:GPL zfs

What's wrong with the GPL "taking" from other licenses? If you don't want your code taken and modified without being given the changes you should pick another license that doesn't allow that (I can name one that comes to mind). I don't see anyone bitching about modified BSD code in Windows or OSX, although I'm sure some changes were given back by Apple. This isn't really directed at you as much as it is to the driver developers who got their panties in a bunch a few months ago, so please don't think I'm taking one word you wrote out of context for the purpose of this rant.

Re:GPL zfs

licensing it under the CDDL is like dangling a carrot out, but saying only one in ever ten people can have a bite.

Actually, it's like saying that only 9.5 out of every 10 people can have a bite... among all the OSes out there, I think only Linux has problems, and that's a tiny fraction of the desktop OSes out there.

Re:GPL zfs

among all the OSes out there, I think only Linux has problems, and that's a tiny fraction of the desktop OSes out there.

This is quite telling. OSX hasn't had too many problems adding it, and neither has freebsd. It's the GPL that has issues, not CDDL.

The fact that GPL needs to have everything that touches it be opened makes it very difficult to use it in proprietary environments. By using CDDL and allowing ZFS to be in freebsd, I could now use freebsd to create a proprietary network storage device using freebsd as the OS, zfs as the file system, and not have to release any source if I don't want to. That's pretty powerful.

Re:GPL zfs

Their big mistake has been ignoring commodity hardware

Not really sure what you mean here. I was rather surprised when I decided to do some Solaris development that the primary focus has moved from Solaris/SPARC to Solaris/x86. Half the cool stuff in OpenSolaris is designed around the x86 platform.

Similarly, the primary focus of the Java codebase is the x86 platform first, remaining platforms later.

Sun is also a massive seller of AMD64 [sun.com] and Intel Xeon [sun.com] based servers and workstations [sun.com]. Amazingly, Sun's prices have even come out of the stratosphere and are extremely competitive with other manufacturers like Dell.

Sun is even working to virtualize these "commodity platforms" with their surprisingly good OpenxVM project [openxvm.org]. I actually passed on a free copy of Parallels because Sun's VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] was working so well for me.

I know Sun has the stigma of selling only overpriced iron, but the truth is that they're fairly well in tune with their customers and are working hard to provide them with the products and services they need. Along the way, the Open Source community is benefiting greatly.

Re:GPL zfs

ZFS is already opensourced and available to all Operating systems with CDDL compatible licences. It is already available in BSD, OSX, OpenSolaris (All distributions including Nexenta,OpenSolaris2008.05,Nevada,Belenix,Schillix,Martux,Milax)

ZFS read is already in OSX 10.5 and I've installed the beta ZFS write in Mac OSX 10.5, created a pool on a USB keychain, imported that pool into OpenSolaris2008.05 (which automagically mounted it). Put stuff on it, snapshotted it, exported it and reimported it into OSX. This is the filesystem of the future. The fact that GPL isn't compatible with ZFS is Linus's problem. Good luck with that FUSE module.

Re:GPL zfs

No, here [opensolaris.org] is why GPL was not chosen:

If you wanted a copyleft license, why didn't you just use the GPL or LGPL?

We needed an open source license that allowed files released under the license to be linked with files released under other licenses. While a license like LGPL would allow this for dynamically-linked code, we also needed to be able to release software that statically links source files available under different licenses. In addition, we wanted to allow others to add externsions to OpenSolaris with different license terms. This was only possible under a license like the MPL; however, we could not use the MPL because it is not a "template" license allowing reuse by others. Consequently, we crafted a variant of the MPL, taking the opportunity to make it a template license as a step towards reducing license proliferation for others finding themselves in a similar position.

The other reason for the creation of the CDDL has to do with software patents:

What does the CDDL say about patents?

The CDDL provides an explicit patent license for code released under the license. This means that you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL without worrying about any patents that the contributors of the code (including Sun) might have on the contributed technology. The license also includes a provision to discourage patent litigation against developers by revoking the rights to the code for anyone initiating a patent claim against a developer regarding code they have contributed.

The reasons that the GPL is incompatible with the CDDL are very complicated and nuanced but in large part have to do with the patent clauses. It is clear why a company such as Sun needs such clauses. So if it were not for the stupidity of the existence of software patents a CDDL-like license could have been created that would have been compatible with the GPL minus some other niggles. Because of the existence of software patents and the need for such clauses the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. It is too bad about the GPL being so restrictive about adding clauses that protect the copyright holders.

Really the spirit should have been that if CDDL source is used in another project that this project needs to be open, but then all sorts of real world complications get in the way. That is basically the spirit of the GPL as well. Sun was against anything BSD-like where another company could take their source and create a closed source product.

Re:GPL zfs

Sun already has most of the useful stuff in the upper part of the GNU/Linux stack because most of it is licensed under BSD/MPL/Apache... licenses which are all compatible with CDDL and run well on OpenSolaris (see openSolaris2008.05 and Nexenta for examples.)

The tiny part of "Linux" which can't be easily used on OpenSolaris, the real Linux almost no one thinks about when they're talking about RedHat, Novell... is Linus's kernel, the filesystem, drivers and a few other bits. What the #^~@% would Sun do with another kernel? The kernel in OpenSolaris has scalability, security and observability features that are only being dreamed about in Linus's kernel. But more importantly, the OpenSolaris kernel has stable APIs and ABIs so you won't have to rebuild and requalify all of your business logic the next time Linus adds a kernel module to support this week's latest X86 (&@?ware.

Re:GPL zfs

Because the GPL is manifestly less free than the CDDL and contributions licensed under the GPL could not be folded back into the CDDL version?

And don't try to say "well, they could stipulate that all submissions have to be dual-licensed"--you and I both know we'd see some stupid little gnuZFS the same day as ZFS was GPL'd, just to get around that.

Sun Doesn't Have Much of a Future

Sun has, and has had, some great products in the past, and some of their hardware is still pretty excellent, but the problem with the company is that they still have a deep rooted protectionist attitude towards SPARC and Solaris. Why do you think it took so long to get Solaris on x86, why it took so long for Sun to accept that x86 servers was where the growth was, why most of Sun's customers still get Linux pre-installed on Sun's systems and why Sun paid a couple of billion for an excellent business opportunity in Cobalt, and then promptly destroyed it?

If they could make Solaris and SPARC stand out and pay off then fine, but they can't hence the half-hearted and pretty sad move to 'open source' Solaris just so all their consultants and execs can run around trying to tell us that it's 'just like Linux'. However, in the cold hard light of day, Linux ate Solaris's lunch, and SPARC just competes too closely with x86 based servers without the comparable performance. SPARC is so inferior to x86 in terms of raw performance it's so laughable. Solaris also suffers from the fact that Sun just don't have the resources to push development to where Linux and other operating systems are, and these days it is increasingly expensive to try and maintain an entire OS yourself.

In terms of open source, Sun's problem is that the vast majority of open source software is written for Linux and the BSDs first. No one thinks of Solaris as their first platform of consideration, and it's difficult to see why they should do so now. It's still like that now, and it was still like that a few years ago when a former employer scratched its head trying to work out why Zope and Python performance was so terrible on Solaris and an UltraSPARC. A Sun guy even recompiled Python in Forte. The bottom line answer we got from the Python devs was "We use open source systems, and possibly Windows, first and foremost on x86 systems, x86 and Linux performs better anyway, and while we'd like to help, we just don't care about your corner case problem on an OS and hardware we don't have access to and can't reproduce. Just use Linux and x86". That's not literal, but it's the general gist, and I couldn't say I blamed them.

The solution? They moved to a far cheaper x86 system with Linux, they had no installation problems with Python as it came within the package management system itself, things were far easier to manage, performance increased exponentially which pleased everyone and Python and Zope ran with no issues whatsoever. That still holds true today.

Re:2001-2002?

Oh, I'd say 2008 is shaping up quite nicely to be one of the worst years in their history. The huge revenue miss in Q3, combined with the total lack of organic revenue growth, the continued exodus of top execs, and the pending layoff of up to 3000 employees doesn't exactly bode well for the future of Sun.

Ponytail-guy and his pals have basically given away the crown jewels and have not been able to "monetize" any sort of decent return for their efforts. The company can't sell servers, gives away software, and keeps purging the budget of the services and marketing teams that are the only pathway left for revenue growth. Geniuses.

I love Sun, I love their software, and they even have some really impressive hardware, but the management team there is absolutely clueless about how or where to take the company. The bets they made on open source and other areas are clearly not paying off. The stock is as low as it has ever been over the past 8 years and is showing no signs of life.

It is utterly depressing to see such a great company go down like this.

Re:2001-2002?

the continued exodus of top execs

This might prove to be a very good thing!

Re:2001-2002?

Even if Sun as a corporate entity disappears, though, I'm sure that their influence will continue to be felt. Look at Netscape. Really, they only had two significant products (which came in one package): Navigator and JavaScript. Now, Netscape is no more, but Navigator lives on as Mozilla/Gecko and JavaScript as ECMAScript, and both of those technologies have been essential to the "2.0"ing of the web.

Sun created Java, which (love it or hate it) is still being taught as part of the core curriculum in many computer science programs. And SunOS/Solaris and its many associated technologies are being integrated into many places (PAM, DTrace, ZFS, and so on). If you have experience with any of Sun's technologies, you know they're not perfect, but they're damn well thought out, and they make many parts of your daily work easier.

I hope Sun weathers these changes-- they're one example of a company that saw a coming shift in the business of selling computers and software, and instead of lobbying the government to prop up their failing business model, instead changed their business model. There's plenty left for Sun to fix in their company-- e.g., have they opened up their hardware documentation yet? (we would probably buy Sun hardware if we could run other OSes, fully-supported on it). But it would be a shame to see such an innovator go the way of Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, etc, etc, etc...

Re:still skeptical

IcedTea is based on OpenJDK, released by Sun.

Re:still skeptical

They are coerced into behaving nicely by the huge open source community which is not that much interested in what they have to offer anymore and have a lot of influence in the market

Not really. Java still dominates the enterprise application market (the only place it ever made any money for Sun), and its open source status is likely to have little effect on this. Even without ZFS being open-sourced, Solaris would still have a world leading file system. And I don't see where any pressure at all came from for them to open source the design of their UltraSparc T1 and T2 processors [opensparc.net]. Sun have been progressively opening more and more of their key business IP, and as far as I can see the only reason they have done so is that they really believe in the benefits of open source.

Re:Sun is still screwing up, albeit not as much

> Solaris, for example, is being positioned as an alternative to Linux: it's "pick us or pick Linux". From an open source point of view, it would be better if Sun picked a license that allowed the best parts of Solaris and Linux to be combined, and for end users to decide what those best parts are.

This is a very important point. Regardless of any so called technical merit Solaris kernel has over Linux, its NOT going to catch up with Linux in adoption or momentum. At least not anytime in the near future. I am telling this as I have managed to get Solaris(intel version) installed on a machine after about half a dozen failed attempts. Mostly due to hardware incompatibility. The tried hardwares include even the very common ones like DL-385. Just to manage it from my laptop(Kubuntu) I installed OpenSSH on the solaris box. It took almost 30 minutes to get it installed where as in linux it would take less than 30 sec. Solaris is no where near to Linux in hardware compatibility , ease of installation, availability of applications ..... But it DOES have some cool technologies like Dtrace and ZFS. So what best SUN can do is to integrate these technologies with Linux and try to get maximum hardware sale and service contract on Linux platform. The problem with SUN has been that they are late in everything. They do things after much resistance. That is what has happened with Java and now going to happen with Solaris. I really wonder why its so hard for the SUN execs to understand such simple things.

Re:Sun has a long way to go..

Or, less charitably, this is a company that does indeed understand what open-source is about and is manipulating the system.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence. Or ignorance, in this case.

Sun is a company comprised of over 30k employees. That's a small city's worth of people. Many of those people have been with Sun for a long time, from times before OSS really came on the scene.

People at the top may get it. People at the bottom (i.e. new, younger hires) may get it. The problem is that there are many people in-between who have been doing things the Sun way (indeed, the standard corporate way) for so long that OSS is just alien and bizarre.

There is indeed a lot of internal hostility toward Linux. A lot of it is just sour grapes, but there is also quite a bit of feeling that Solaris is the superior solution, and people are downright baffled that anyone would knowingly choose inferior technology. "If we just showed them the light, they'd use Solaris instead of that Linux crap!"

As with most huge multinationals, the company is made up of several distinct business units. Hardware, Software, Sales, Services, IT, etc. Sales people make money on software sales and support contracts. They also make money on high-margin government and finance sales. What they don't make much money on is bare hardware sales, especially if the customer wants Linux. Unfortunately, what this all means is that the people who use revenue streams to try and shape corporate focus are in a battle with the senior executives who are trying to shift the company away from relying on those high-margins-but-shrinking-buyer-pool revenue sources.

There is also the problem that for many people, a job is a job. They're not particularly interested in keeping up with things outside of their sphere of influence. Change means having to learn new things, and sadly, there is a lot of resistance to change (not just at Sun, of course!)

It will certainly be interesting to see what Sun looks like in 5-10 years, if it still exists as a distinct corporate entity.