Sun Looks To GPL3 For Java, Solaris 164
daria42 writes "Sun is leaning toward changing the license for Java and Solaris to the GNU GPL version 3. The article has some insightful comments from Sun boss Jonathan Schwartz. '"Will we GPL Solaris? We want to ensure we can interact with the GPL community and the Mozilla community and the BSD community," he says.'"
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
You know why businesses win war with Linux? It's not that they have the brightest people around, FOSS has also, they just choose people with some INTERPERSONAL skills so they don't fight all the time.
This stupid license wars is slowing Linux and FOSS community and serves NO FUCKING PURPOSE!
The same is about 1 million Linux distros that are sometimes TOTALLY not interoperable.
Can we finally WAKE UP???
PS: Sorry for AC, but you'll eat me alive, so what's the point of losing karma for it? Eat me alive for saying THE FUCKING TRUTH!!!
That's a reasonable choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDD (Score:5, Interesting)
Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threa
http://lwn.net/Articles/221543/ [lwn.net]
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no. The work made by the programmer will be available to the user no matter whether the license is BSD or GPL, or many others. Once a version of some code is released open source, it will be there forever.
The difference between the GPL and BSD is that the GPL ensures that any improvements to the code will be given back to the community. This makes it more restrictive and businesses cannot add code to a GPL'd app that might give away their business secrets. (Unless they keep it in-house, blah blah blah.)
Not too long ago.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Be careful what you wish for...
Re:What a load of FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting point (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've since found one good use for BSD-like licenses. They're good for situations where what you care about the most is that people are using your code. For example, I think some of the Vorbis code was released under BSD so that companies producing proprietary software would add Vorbis support, hopefully leading to widespread adoption of Vorbis.
Has this any implications for the Linux kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)
But then... if Sun go for GPLv3, I'm not certain that can coexist within the same kernel as a bunch of GPLv2 code.
Re:Interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
Two bad examples are the BSD network stack and giflib (MIT Licence).
Both are now in Microsoft Windows with nothing more than a credit line to the original developers buried somewhere.
Personally all my code will be GPLed.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL and BSD code are totally free to use.
BSD is free to redistribute, no problems (well, you should have a copyright notice) - Microsoft used in Windows 2000 a network stack (TCP/IP) derived from the BSD stack.
GPL is not free to redistribute - unlike BSD, anything containing even a small part of GPL code MUST be redistributed with its full source code, both the GPL part and the modified code.
Assuming Google uses the Linux kernel - Google can change anything in the kernel, and keep the code secret AS LONG AS it doesn't give the updated kernel to anyone. If it would, it would need to ship full source code (or at least the place to get the standard code, and all its modifications to it)
Re:Interesting point (Score:4, Interesting)
If business pays for code they buy it from community for their own use, thus code will be released from GPL and free for their use. That would mean licensed for their use. And cash can be used, for example, to pay developers for creating things dull and boring like Exchange connectors (damn important for businesses) and such.
Just an idea, what do you think?
One of the things to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Linux kernel as a whole is indeed copyright by many people, some of whom are not keen on GPLv3, but what is critical for Solaris is not the WHOLE kernel but the parts which are in fact better than Solaris. The obvious ones are drivers and file system support, but I imagine there are others as well. The point, however, is that Solaris doesn't NEED all of the Linux kernel code. They could only benefit from a few key parts, and the authors of those parts might be convinced to see things differently than Linus and company.
If I were Sun, what I would be doing is a) waiting for the final GPLv3 while being very active in the process of developing the license b) quietly contacting key individual authors of parts of the Linux kernel that would benefit Solaris, sounding out their attitude to see how much code would be available if they did make the switch, and c) putting an in-house team on a Linux vs. Solaris evaluation to determine the major lacks of Solaris and how they might be addressed internally, assuming no Linux code will be usable.
The Free Software Foundation's support is not necessarily a guarantee of OS kernel success (*cough*HURD*cough*) but if all FSF code goes GPLv3 and Solaris follows suit being the new favorite development platform of the GNU toolchain will have to have some benefits.
I'd say the biggest key for Solaris is "what can GPLv3 do for me?" And the biggest immediate factor there is how many of the current Linux kernel authors with desirable code would be willing to consider accommodating Sun by releasing under GPLv3. If they won't, then the question becomes how many new developers could they attract, and that's a much harder question to answer.
Re:Solaris, we hardly knew thee (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I see the potential differently. Consider ---
For years the GNU folks have tried to point out that Linux is just a kernel and the system should be referred to as GNU/Linux. They've been largely unsuccessful because there is no alternative (GNU/Hurd isn't really there).
Now along comes Sun offering the Solaris kernel which would allow for GNU/Solaris.
Add to this that the SCO lawsuit was based on IBM contributing code to the Linux kernel (though they probably tried to include samples from GNU tools), Microsoft working with Novell to patent protect users of the the Linux kernel (haven't heard MS say anything about the GNU tools), and we have business concerned again about Linux legalities.
Sun, however, will claim original or approved authorship of all of Solaris (as early Unix licensees), thus making GNU/Solaris potentially less risky in the eyes of the business community. I would think Sun would prefer the separation of Solaris (on Sun hardware) from Solaris (on Intel hardware) and probably wouldn't have an issue with it being referred to as GNU/Solaris, IMHO.
And, if Sun does it right and continues improvements in Project Looking Glass [sun.com], then GNU/Solaris with a 3D desktop built on GPL3-Java could have an impact not only on Windows but also potentially OSX. I wonder how many video card manufacturers would be willing to work with Sun for drivers for GNU/Solaris?
All in all, this could push Linux (GNU/Linux) off the front burner. Could be interesting.