CDDL Project Leader on the CDDL

SunFan writes "Claire Giordano, Sun's lead on CDDL development, gives the inside story on how the new license was developed. She discusses how people within Sun debated the various licenses, including the GPL, and shows why the GPL, BSD, and MPL licenses were found to come up short in meeting the needs of Sun's broad customer and developer base."

You know what I find?

[ShaniaTwain]

I find that there are just not enough licenses out there, so I'm thrilled to hear there's a new one. Eventually there may even be more licenses than things to be licensed, and what then?

I'm just sayin' is all...

Re:You know what I find?

[SCVirus]

This comment has been licensed under the personal slashdot creative commons license: THIS COMMENT COMES WITHOUT WARRENTY OF ANY KIND......

Re:You know what I find?

[AvantLegion]

>> Eventually there may even be more licenses than things to be licensed, and what then?

Easy! Dual licensing! [trolltech.com]

I found something more ;)

[William Robinson]

LMAO, after reading this part of article.

Top 10 Reasons It's Better to be a Bartender than an Engineer:

10. You get to throw out annoying customers
9. The tips are bigger than the sunshare bonus.
8. You don't have to go to a steering committee to mix someone a drink.
7. Drunks are not nearly as long winded as Tony.
6. It doesn't take 6 signatures to hire a new bartender.
5. It's in a growth industry.
4. It's a lot more fun to work from home.
3. You don't need ARC approval for a new Cosmo re

To summarize...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We fear Linux so we want to be incompatable.

We announced a great $2-billion we-both-respect-IP deal with Microsoft, and the F/OSS guys won't be giving us $2 billion soon.

How do we write a license that keeps Microsoft happy and trys as well as we can to divide and conquor the Linux developer base."

Re:And what lame excuses they used

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not do the same thing as the Linux community, and release it without those drivers until someone writes an open-source replacement.

Because, ultimately, no one gives a rat's ass about a proprietary driver. If it works, that's great. If it's open source, well, that's nice, but working is better.

Re:And what lame excuses they used

[duffbeer703]

If you did the same thing as the linux community, you'd ship binary drivers with your kernel, violating the letter and spirit of the GPL.

Re:And what lame excuses they used

[Slashcrap]

If you did the same thing as the linux community, you'd ship binary drivers with your kernel, violating the letter and spirit of the GPL.

Exactly! That's why, when you download the latest release of the Linux kernel, it comes with Nvidia's proprietary binary drivers already included.

Oh no hang on, I've just realised you're full of shit.

MPL-style license? try LGPL.

[ebyrob]

What the author of "Failed as in succeeded wildly." meant was LGPL-style licenses. LGPL has been around a lot longer than MPL and actually fits what he describes.

Re:MPL-style license? try LGPL.

[WebMink]

Assuming you are referring to my blog entry [sun.com] discussing the way that the success, not failure, of MPL-style licenses is at the root of the license proliferation problem, I'm afraid I don't agree with you. LGPL does not include the explicit patent grant that the MPL includes, nor does it establish ground rules for maintaining a patent peace, and thus does not serve as the archetype for MPL licenses and their (many) derivatives. Instead it includes an exception to the scope of the GPL which depends on the language and architecture of the software in use and makes assumptions on how dynamic linking will take place. In all other respects it is the same as my third license category, GPL licenses.

Re:MPL-style license? try LGPL.

[lgw]

I'm curious in what environment Solaris is faster than Linux. I'm sure there must be one, but around here, with ordinary sorts of loads like compiles and filesharing, Linux is about twice as fast as Solaris on the same Sun hardware.

Re:MPL-style license? try LGPL.

[0racle]

Handeling multiple threads across multiple processors is Solaris's claim to fame. Running Solaris on a single processor system does degrade the performance.

Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not GPL-compatible. I appreciate you want to be able to mix in proprietary code. If you need that, you can do one of two things. You can use LGPL, or you can include a clause "May also be sublicensed under the GPL, version 2.0 or newer." The only thing you lose is the patent litigation protection. You can also grant yourselves rights to change the main CDCL without alienating the mainstream FLOSS community.

Either way, a large number of people, for whatever reasons, distrust Sun. Releasing under a license that is widely percieved to be incompatible with the greater free software community is fanning those flames. Most people percieve this as a simply ploy to make it impossible to move code back and forth between the Linux kernel and Solaris. That's not really big on freedom.

One of the great parts of free software is rapid development. About half of my apps are built by glueing together code from other people's programs. Making Solaris not compatible with the GPL breaks that, and it's not good for building a developer community around Solaris.

I wish you guys the best of luck, but I think that given a GPL-incompatible license, you'll have a really hard time building a large developer community.

With a GPL-compatible license, if Solaris got to be better than Linux, virtually no one would think twice about switching from Debian GNU/Linux to Debian GNU/Solaris.

Also, notice the trend. Virtually everyone (Netscape, TrollTech, etc.) starts with their own crappy license, and eventually, switches to a dual-licensing model that includes GPL. Follow the lesson, and start off on the GPL side from the start.

Re:Real Problem

[insert_username_here]

Also, notice the trend. Virtually everyone (Netscape, TrollTech, etc.) starts with their own crappy license, and eventually, switches to a dual-licensing model that includes GPL. Follow the lesson, and start off on the GPL side from the start.

There's a reason for that, as described in TFA... as you mentioned, wherever possible, it's always easier to use someone else's code than to write some more of your own. The same goes in the proprietrary world, except that instead of all using one license (GPL/BSD

Re:Real Problem

[Taladar]

Dual Licensing isn't "half of it is GPL and the other half is not", it is "you can use either GPL or another license for all of it".

Re:Real Problem

[truesaer]

Typical double standard. I don't see people bitching about Mozilla projects using a similar license.

Re:Real Problem

[unapersson]

Mozilla may use the MPL, but it's also tri-licensed with the GPL and LGPL. I doubt if there'd be have the stink there has been if the Sun code was dual licensed with the GPL. Which means you could use the code under either license.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Real Problem

[SunFan]

It's not GPL-compatible.

The CDDL would be, because it is a file-based license, but the GPL does not allow it.

The only thing you lose is the patent litigation protection.

You can always purchase an expensive insurance policy from OSRM...or get it for free in OpenSolaris.

That's not really big on freedom.

OSI fully recognizes that Sun is acting quite freely. Your sentiment is extremely GPL-centered.

GPL-compatible

You've used forms of this word at least five times in your post. You do understand th

Re:Real Problem

[Waldmeister]

This is hardly a reasonable way to look at it. Many licenses are compatible with this, and the "viral" clause does not stop you from making the code available under any other license you like as well.

I think, it is a valid way. Do you remember the stories about the early days of the GNU project? It was basically RMS' anoyance that he was not granted access to a specific source code, so that he deceided, all source should be freely accessible for all hackers.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html [gnu.org]

Re:Real Problem

[hacker]

"Non-GPL code becomes GPL. It's like an irreversible chemical reaction, unless you happen to own the copyright to all the code to begin with."

I hear this "viral" kool-aid all the time regarding the GPL, and I do find it funny every time it comes up. The GPL is not viral. Repeat that to yourself. Call the FSF and ask them.. No really, go ahead, I'll hold.

I know this intimately, because we're fighting a GPL case now (4+ years and counting) against a company that took our code, removed our names, called it their own and ship it without the license, including linking parts of it to their own products. We're FSF-backed (they've appointed us an incredible attorney), and we've gone over every angle of this hundreds of times.

If the "if it touches the GPL, it must be GPL" FUD was real, do you truly think companies like Oracle, VMware, and thousands of others would deploy their binary-only products on Linux, which links to... guess what, tools, libraries, userspace programs covered under either the GPL or the LGPL.

It goes like this. Watch carefully now:

1. You write a proprietary product
2. You want to add a feature, so you take some GPL code and add it to your proprietary product
3. Author of the GPL code finds that you are using his code, and requests one of two things:
   1. The full source code to the pieces that link or modified his code, or...
   2. That you no longer have the rights to use his code in your proprietary product
4. Your rights to continue to use the code under the GPL are immediately revoked.

At this point, you are no longer covered by the GPL license, and any further use of the GPL code is now a United States Copyright Violation (and possibly a Lanham Act violation, which is defined as "...false designation of origin").

So to get yourself out of this mess, you have a few options, all of which require that you stop using the GPL code in your product (well, except one; see below). There is no way to continue to use GPL code in a violating way, period. Many people believe you just pay a fine and business goes on, but it doesn't work like that. You're still guilty of the violation.

1. Settle with the developer for an undisclosed fee, a fine.
2. Go to court, and let the judge decide what your penalties are (US Copyright violations carry anywhere from $20k to $200k in fines, per-incident). They'll most-likely issue a blanket settlement in the sub-million dollar range, because its hard to determine "damages" of GPL code when its given away freely, and downloaded/shared all over the place.
3. Encourage the developer to relicense the code to you under a non-GPL license

Again, at no point does YOUR PRODUCT somehow become GPL code. It just doesn't happen, ever. There isn't one single precendent of this happening, because that's not how GPL violations are handled.

So please, in the future, do some research, read the GPL (actually READ it), and call the FSF or the EFF if you wish, and find out the real facts. Stop spreading FUD, you're only making the problem worse for yourself.

Re:Real Problem

[Waldmeister]

The GPL is not viral.

Well, why do you think, viral doesn't describe the paragraph 2.b) of the GPL [gnu.org] adequately?

2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

I don't question the way, GPL violations are handled at court today. But the GPL demands rights on your code which is problematic and made many open source

Re:Real Problem

[killmenow]

Hey, Waldmeister, I am Influenza. If I infect you, you will get certain benefits. Among these could be some much needed rest. On the other hand, there may be a down side. For instance, you might not feel so well. Anyway, please carefully weigh the pros and cons of my presence and tell me: would you like me to infect you?

I always give people the choice up front, you see. All us viruses are like that...well, all except that nasty GPL. No choice there whatsoever. It just barrels right on in and tak

Re:Real Problem

[Ibag]

However, if you want to use someone's GPL'd code in your product without consulting with them, the only safe and legal way to do it is to release under the GPL.

Of course, this ammounts to saying "It is free, but you can't just take it and do whatever," and I think that is perfectly reasonable. Calling it viral is propganda at best. I think the point is that it is less free (or differently free) than an MIT/BSD liscense.

Personally, I like the LGPL more, but the liscense you chose should be for its merits

Re:Real Problem

[zootm]

They meant that if you wanted to use the code legally. The fact that you can use it until the author of the GPLed code finds out is something of a loophole, nothing more. If you want to link to/etc. GPL code, you need to GPL your code or face litigation, as you said.

Re:Real Problem

[Chemisor]

> Again, at no point does YOUR PRODUCT somehow become GPL code.

True, but the consequences you describe are a direct result of refusing to make the product GPL. You use GPL - you get infected. The cure is either to GPL the entire product or pay a fine and surgically remove all GPL code.

> It just doesn't happen, ever.

Also correct. The GPL is a disease, but an easily avoidable disease - just don't use any GPL code. I don't see why people consider this a problem. The issue is only brought up by the GPL fanatics who want the entire world to be under their precious license. When that happens, there is absolutely no need to argue. If you write the code, you can license it in any way you wish, and when the GPL camp comes begging at your door, all you need to do is say 'no' and leave them to their whining.

Re:Real Problem

[hacker]

"You use GPL - you get infected. The cure is either to GPL the entire product or pay a fine and surgically remove all GPL code."

The bold item above is exactly the kind of misinformation that propagates this myth about the GPL being viral. It is nothing of the sort.

You are required, when you agreed to the license, to release the source code to derivitive works based upon GPL software, i.e. the code you incorporated into your proprietary product. You don't have to GPL the entire product at all, and not

Re:Real Problem

[eviltypeguy]

I don't believe you. Sorry.

Point me at an FSF page that spells out exactly what you're saying, otherwise shush.

Your interpretation goes against *EVERYTHING* I"ve ever heard, including what RedHat's lawyers, and all kinds of other people have said. You're one voice against many and that usually means you're wrong.

Re:Real Problem

[SunFan]

It seems the whole point to your posts above is that the GPL isn't viral because you don't have to GPL the code--you just have to hire a lawyer and go to court or just opt out entirely. I guess that's a compromise.

You are also arguing based on a slightly different definition of 'viral'. In most discussions, it is used in the context of making larger works based on source code, not simply installing binaries that link against LGPL shared libraries.

...the code you incorporated into your proprietary prod

Re:Real Problem

[Chemisor]

> to release the source code to derivitive works
> based upon GPL software, i.e. the code you
> incorporated into your proprietary product. You
> don't have to GPL the entire product at all

Most products don't contain a multitude of independent binaries; they usually have one executable and perhaps a couple of shared libraries. Word processors, games, and database engines all are pretty much like that.

Now say a single module, in a shared library, uses some GPL code. That module is then required to

Re:Real Problem

[hacker]

"It seems the whole point to your posts above is that the GPL isn't viral because you don't have to GPL the code--you just have to hire a lawyer and go to court or just opt out entirely. I guess that's a compromise."

No, my whole point was that the GPL doesn't "infect" code, because it isn't viral. If you incorporate GPL code into some portion of your project or product, THAT PORTION (not your entire product) becomes a derivitive work. As such, the pieces you've changed should be released under the GPL.

Re:Real Problem

[Chemisor]

> If you borrow a piece of GPL code, and CHANGE
> NOTHING in the GPL code, it just plugs directly
> into your product, you don't have to release your
> entire product as GPL.

Richard Stallman disagrees [gnu.org]. I can also refer you to the FSF GPL FAQ and what it has to say on the subject. [fsf.org] This very scenario was the reason to create the LGPL in the first place. If linking didn't infect, the GPL and the LGPL would be the same thing.

> I don't need or want your entire product, only
> the part that you'v

Re:Real Problem

[hacker]

"If you read the LGPL and the reasons for creating it, you'd understand that the "viral rant" really is true. Your mistake is simply in not knowing the difference between GPL and LGPL. Look it up. What you think of as GPL really is the LGPL."

I guess the fault lies with the FSF then, and their training of their cousul. They've been advising us for the last 4-or-so years on the matter. I'm definately not confusing the LGPL with the GPL, and I know the differences very intimately. Perhaps you're confused.

Re:Real Problem

[Magic Thread]

The same can be said about Microsoft's EULA: if you don't accept it, you don't have any right to use their software at all!

You are missing the point. EULAs insist that you cannot use the software without accepting them. If you don't accept the agreement, you are not allowed to click the button that says "I Agree." That takes away a right, because normally you have the right to click a button on your own computer. I don't know whether these agreements are legally valid, but I hope they're not.

You only ha

Re:Real Problem

[Chemisor]

> I know the differences very intimately

For someone who "knows the differences very intimately", you are surprizingly ignorant of the linking issue.

> Perhaps you're confused.

Where am I confused? I am simply pointing out that under GPL, linking creates a derivative work, hence making GPL a viral license. The LGPL explicitly removes the linking clause and is therefore not a viral license.

> I guess the fault lies with the FSF then, and their training of their cousul.

The fault does indeed lie with

Re:Real Problem

[eviltypeguy]

Nope. You're the confused one here. Take a look at their site again.

To quote the FSF faq:

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

So your theory just got busted.

Re:Real Problem

[Chemisor]

> EULAs insist that you cannot use the software without accepting them.

The same is true of the GPL. If you don't accept the license, you can't use the software. The GPL just places fewer conditions on you. Just as a Microsoft License violator loses the rights to use Microsoft Office, so does the GPL violator loses the rights granted by the GPL.

> If you don't accept the agreement, you are not
> allowed to click the button that says "I Agree."
> That takes away a right, because normally you
> ha

Re:Real Problem

[McDutchie]

There is no way to continue to use GPL code in a violating way, period.

Exactly. And the cheapest way to get rid of licensing troubles is to release source code of your derivative works (or switch to a better licence).

Too late. The GPL violation has occurred, ergo your license to use the software was automatically revoked at the time of the violation (read section 4 of the GPL). Any such release would simply be a further copyright violation.

Don't like the choice?

[rewt66]

Then don't use the GPLed code. Simple.

But if you are sticking GPLed code in your proprietary product (contrary to the terms of the GPL), and getting caught in that situation leaves you only a few choices, and you don't like any of them... well, my heart fails to bleed for you.

Re:Yes, it's a Real Problem:

[rpdillon]

http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_summary.html:

Executive Summary

We have carefully reviewed the existing OSI approved licenses and found none of them to meet our needs, and thus have reluctantly drafted a new open source license based on the Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 ("MPL"). We do appreciate the issue of license proliferation, however, and have worked hard to make the Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL") as reusable as possible. Additionally, we have attempted to address the probl

device drivers

[jab]

How can developers embrace Solaris if they can't run it? Without a GPL compatible license, Solaris can't cross pollinate with Linux for device drivers.

# du -s kernel-source-2.6.11/drivers kernel-source-2.6.11
92300 kernel-source-2.6.11/drivers
223937 kernel-source-2.6.11

Re:device drivers

[jab]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Linux works on all sorts of hardware, and a huge part of the development effort for Linux has been writing and testing thousands of device drivers. Solaris doesn't have nearly as much support, especially for oddball devices. If the Solaris license was GPL compatible, I think there would be quite a bit of activity porting Linux drivers over to Solaris. Without a GPL compatible license, I think Solaris will have significantly less hardware support in the long term, especially for the r

Re:device drivers

[pesc]

Linux works on all sorts of hardware, and a huge part of the development effort for Linux has been writing and testing thousands of device drivers. Solaris doesn't have nearly as much support, especially for oddball devices.

So Solaris runs best on machines configured and sold by Sun-the-hardware-manufacturer? Instead of cheap oddball machines? I'm afraid Sun might think this is a feature and not a bug. :-(

Re:Real Problem

[PygmySurfer]

With a GPL-compatible license, if Solaris got to be better than Linux, virtually no one would think twice about switching from Debian GNU/Linux to Debian GNU/Solaris.

Big IF. I think many would argue Solaris is already better than Linux. But, for argument's sake, let's say its not better than Linux. If it became better, I'd happily switch, regardless of license.

What do I know though? I use Mac OS X, FreeBSD and Windows.

Re:Real Problem

[Taladar]

I don't think Solaris x86 has more and better drivers than Linux x86.

Re:Real Problem

[Waldmeister]

It's not GPL-compatible.

Yes, the Apache license is also considered incompatible with the GPL, and the Apache webserver is still the dominant webserver. And I never heard RMS rant about that, and demand writing an Apache replacement under the GPL.

PHP is also licensed under an GPL-incompatible license. Still remember the mess with MySQL? When they relicened their client libraries from LGPL to GPL, because they wanted to urge more companies to buy commercial MySQL licenses, they had to issue an "Optional GPL License Exception for PHP". Otherwise they would have been replaced by many sites with competing projects like Postgres available under a more liberal license. Does this mess (and the commercial interest behind it) help free software or the community?

When Sun released OpenOffice under a dual license, some companies like Ximian or Redhat refused to license their changes under both licenses, they released them only under the GPL. So the patches found never their way to openoffice.org and today every distribution patches their own version of OpenOffice. Did this help open source or the community?

These are only a few points to show that the GPL is not the only OSS license. Sun has contributed a lot of code, so they have made probably more experiences with OSS licenses than most other people and companies. Is it really so hard to understand, that they see issues and don't simply hail RMS and the GPL?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Real Problem

[Raphael]

Also, notice the trend. Virtually everyone (Netscape, TrollTech, etc.) starts with their own crappy license, and eventually, switches to a dual-licensing model that includes GPL. Follow the lesson, and start off on the GPL side from the start.

Although I don't think that Sun could have licensed everything under the GPL because of the reasons mentioned in TFA (proprietary code from third parties), it is really a pity that they do not allow dual-licensing with the CDDL and GPL.

Unlike some GPL zealots her

Re:Real Problem

[Waldmeister]

I can understand that Sun is afraid that dual-licensing would be one-way only: some code would be borrowed in other GPL projects and would not come back to Sun (or at least not to the Solaris kernel) because it could not be dual-licensed again. But if this is the only reason, then I think that it is short-sighted.

Hmm, I don't think so. Sun did exactly this type of dual-licensing with OpenOffice and there's a lot of code, which wasn't contributed back to OOo. So every distribution comes with its own build

Re:Real Problem

[Raphael]

Sun did exactly this type of dual-licensing with OpenOffice and there's a lot of code, which wasn't contributed back to OOo.

The OOo case is a bit different because it uses the SISSL, not the CDDL. I vaguely remember that there were some problems with a previous version of the SISSL that kept people from using it. I'm not sure, though.

[...] So he could license his drivers under a less restrictive and problematic BSD-style license.

Less restrictive, yes. Less problematic, no. Both Sun and the GPL

Re:Real Problem

[samael]

I wish you guys the best of luck, but I think that given a GPL-incompatible license, you'll have a really hard time building a large developer community.

Because Java has a _tiny_ developer community. There's nobody interested in improving it at all.

Those who can do....

[syousef]

....those who can't work in marketing and legal and come up with licenses.

Re:Those who can do....

[ebyrob]

Ouch my tummy! That's funny. Too bad I have no +1 for ya.

Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[rewinn]

Does it depend on how you look at it?

Per the article: I realized how important it was for us to allow OpenSolaris kernel source files to be compiled and linked with other open source files and even with proprietary source files in the kernel. GPL would not allow this. On Day 1 of OpenSolaris, because some OpenSolaris IP is encumbered by other companies (example - 3rd party drivers), we're going to have some source files in the kernel that will remain proprietary. Hence GPL was out of the running.

Does thi

Re:Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Hate playing the devil's advocate, but their license is Open, it just isn't Free. It meets the OSI requirements, which means OSI approval means less to me than once it did.

Re:Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[KingJoshi]

You're right and wrong. Wrong because the Open Source Initiative decided it was "Open". It's not "Free" by the Free Software Foundation. GPL is Free Software and Open Source. Using common words, which might not have been applied to source code at the time, has created a lot of confusion. I mean, if programmers and others can get confused, think how confused the PHBs can get.

There's a reason Stallman has been a stickler on correct term usage. Saying just Linux instead of GNU/Linux over-emphasizes Linus Torvalds and the Open Source methodology, while ignoring the Free Software foundation for much of the distros we use. Similarly, using "Intellectual Property" creates confusion among different laws which have their own reasonings behind them.

I don't know if creating more terminology will help. I think if you're always a stickler like Stallman, too many people will ignore you, when they might need to heed your information the most. But we (as an industry or whatever) definitely need to better inform people in our own industry.

There are philosophical, political AND practical reasons for the differences of BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc. It takes less time to inform than it does to argue, but many seem to choose the latter...

Re:Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[TorKlingberg]

It's not "Free" by the Free Software Foundation.

From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html [fsf.org]

"Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL."

I don't like CDDL either, but it IS a free software license.

Re:Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[KingJoshi]

wow. thanks for correcting me. my mistake.

Re:Is the License Half-Open or Half-Closed?

[Xtifr]

the Open Source Initiative decided it was "Open". It's not "Free" by the Free Software Foundation.

What, the CDDL? Is too Free! The FSF has it listed as a free software license right here [gnu.org]. "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. [...]" CDDL is free and open source. It's just incompatible (at a source-code merging level) with 60-80% of the software on a typical Linux distribution. Including the huge

CDDL IS a Free Software license

[scarhill]

No, you're mistaken. According to FSF [gnu.org],

[The CDDL] is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.

Because it's incompatible with the GPL, they urge developers not to use it, but it definitely is a free software license.

Lame Excuse

[sbszine]

From TFA: On Day 1 of OpenSolaris, because some OpenSolaris IP is encumbered by other companies (example - 3rd party drivers), we're going to have some source files in the kernel that will remain proprietary. Hence GPL was out of the running.

The whole point of opening the source and creating a community is so that people can develop the things they need, free of the problems proprietary code brings. I find it hard to believe that much Solaris kernel code belongs to anyone other than Sun.

Linux started out with very few drivers, but now supports most common hardware. Sometimes this support takes the form of binary or wrapped drivers, but that hasn't prevented Linux from remaining under the GPL.

This is just more of the usual Sun guff.

Lame cop-out

[E-Lad]

Well, you're certainly welcome to write your own drivers for something that had to be held back in OpenSolaris due to a 3rd-party's constraints which are external to Sun. Come on, isn't that one of the beloved Linux mantras?

The thing cynical /. posters seem to be missing here is that Sun /did/ look at the GPL... they didn't outright dismiss it. Sun found that they were encumbered by 3rd-party constraints which the GPL was incompatible with and so they had to short-circuit to the next best thing - the CDDL.

Cop-out expanded upon

[sbszine]

Well, you're certainly welcome to write your own drivers for something that had to be held back in OpenSolaris due to a 3rd-party's constraints which are external to Sun. Come on, isn't that one of the beloved Linux mantras?

Under the CDDL they would have to be rewritten anyway if we wanted to make our own Solaris distros, because the 3rd party patent deals / licence grants apply only between that party and Sun. About which, more below...

The thing cynical /. posters seem to be missing here is that Sun /did/ look at the GPL... they didn't outright dismiss it. Sun found that they were encumbered by 3rd-party constraints which the GPL was incompatible with and so they had to short-circuit to the next best thing - the CDDL.

Is the next best thing the CDDL, or is it the MPL upon which the CDDL was based? Under the MPL (section 3.4), Sun would have had to disclose the extent to which the code was encumbered by third parties. One of the few differences between the CDDL and the MPL is the removal of this clause. The implication of this is that Sun (who already has IP deals with the third party vendors) can use CDDL code in commercial products without any legal worries. But open source developers distributing CDDL cannot, and Sun's modification to the licence means that the encumbered parts of the code cannot be distinguished from the unecumbered parts.

The point of the CDDL seems to be to supply Sun with free development and debugging for code which only it can safely distribute. Lest you think this is me donning my tinfoil hat, please read the relevant Groklaw commentary [groklaw.net].

I am not asking Sun to release other people's encumbered code. I just want them to identify (and, for bonus points, encapsulate it) so that it can be replaced with unencumbered code.

Solaris is an awesome technology. You would be - no pun intended - CLOSING yourself off if you think being able to look at and use the Solaris source is irrelevant.

Solaris does have a lot of cool stuff in it. Sadly, learning from some of that stuff could get us into legal trouble. It might be better for people who also do GPL development not to even look at the code.

Re:Cop-out expanded upon

[eviltypeguy]

Sorry, that just isn't true.

Using CDDL licensed software gives you the rights to the code completely under the terms it gives.

Stop trying to spread FUD.

Re:Lame Excuse

[codemachine]

I find it hard to believe that much Solaris kernel code belongs to anyone other than Sun.

Um, ever heard of SCO?

Only because Linus doesn't sue

[Chemisor]

> Sometimes this support takes the form of binary or wrapped
> drivers, but that hasn't prevented Linux from remaining under the GPL.

Binary drivers are technically a violation of the GPL because they link into a GPL executable. Such linking normally requires all involved components to be GPL. Fortunately, Linus is not objecting much to this, so Linux is doing just fine. If Linux were being developed by Richard Stallman, however, it wouldn't have lasted a day.

Cause Sun is scared....

[jsimon12]

They are afraid they will lose control, not that it matters much.

Re:Cause Sun is scared....

[Beolach]

Just do like Linus does.

"People disagree with me. I just ignore them." - Linus Torvalds
"If you still don't like it, that's ok: that's why I'm boss. I simply know better than you do." - Linus Torvalds

He's lost so much control over the Linux kernel, now hasn't he?

Re:Cause Sun is scared....

[Taladar]

Isn't this the whole story of Java all over again? Java could have been so much more (especially so much more compatible and available on other platforms) if only they would release it as uncontrolled open source but they seem to be afraid of losing control.

That was the inside story?

[donnz]

Kinda disappointing write up...

She says that "early in the planning for OpenSolaris that we needed to use a "true" open source license - a license that complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition and that encourages royalty-free use, modification and distribution."

As opposed to all those other false ones out there that completely fail in the above goals. They considered all options, she claims, except the glaringly obvious LGPL, it would seem.

We at least know that Sun recognises "it's all about

What's wrong with CDDL?

[jmv]

I just read the definition of the definition of the CDDL [sun.com]. Outside of the fact that it's not compatible with the GPL (which can always be solved by dual-licensing), I find it reasonable. Of course, I may have missed some details, so I'd be happy if someone could point out what the problem is (outside of "it's from Sun" or "it's another license"). Also, I see that they distinguish between "Initial Developer" and "Contributor", but I don't see any difference between the rights given to one and the other. Can a

Re:Big problem

[jmv]

I see. Could you poing me to the actual place in the license that says so, because I wasn't able to find it just by looking quickly at the terms.

Re:Big problem

[oxygene2k2]

no, IBM just uses its own MPL derivative (eclipse's license) or the CPL - which have basically the same terms - for most of its projects (except those it didn't start, where it has to abide to the original license)

Linux is not the only open source OS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OSI approved i.e. OPEN SOURCE. Some slashdotters are only getting their knickers in a knot because Solaris is not Linux. Kind of sad that many people have this view of open source.

Sun could open source their entire software line (and are well on their way to doing so (with the exception of Java)) and these folks would still not be satisfied.

Other problems with the CDDL

[jbolden]

There are a lot of threads about the issue of GPL incompatability. But not including that the author of the article mentions that he wants the CDDL to become a license in line with the GPL or the BSD license. The problem is:

1) Its not as simple as the BSD license thus manages to duck the hard issues

2) Its not as well thought out as the GPL which addresses the hard issues dead on.

1) CDDL definition of source code: "Source Code" means (a) the common form of computer software code in which modifications are made and
(b) associated documentation included in or with such code.

GPL definition of source code: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

What does documentation included with such code mean? Say for examples most changes are made in response to bug tickets do you need to include them? Very vague

2) Obligation to distribute source

CDDL - Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available
in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License.... You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they
can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used
for software exchange.

GPL -- Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

You can see the differences.
-- How long do you have to provide source code
-- What about casual copying
-- What if the information in the executable is no longer true (like you can download this code from www.xyz.com/abc/bcd)?
etc...

3) CDDL on "modifications" -- The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License. You represent that You believe Your Modifications are Your original creation(s) and/or You have sufficient rights to
grant the rights conveyed by this License.

GPL on derived works -- Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program),

The GPL uses the notion of derived work which has tons of case law behind it. The CDDL uses "modifications" which opens the door to which sorts of derivations are modifications. I don't see any point in this change.

Anyway I'm not sure what the CDDL offers over the GPL other than lots of chat about patent claims.

Sun's been hyping their CDDL for a while..

[line.at.infinity]

The CDDL was mentioned on an earlier slashdot article: Sun's Schwartz Attacks GPL [slashdot.org].
The gist of what he had to say: "GPL sucks! CDDL rulez!"

Re:Sun's been hyping their CDDL for a while..

[Waldmeister]

How does that differ from RMS, who could be summarized like "GPL rulez! All other licenses suck!"

That's oversimplified? Yes, that's even more simplified than your "summary" of Schwartz speach. Maybe you should read the article [zdnet.com] inside the slashdot story.

And it's all bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun needed a way to present themselves as going open source without allowing the open source community to get any benefit from this. The CDDL was their tool to do this.

Everything else, any rationalizations for why they engineered their license the way they did, is just PR.

Questionable OSI Approval

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow the debate over the CDDL in the OSI mailing list, you'll notice that the OSI seemed to approve the license pretty quickly. There were many licenses waiting for approval that were submitted earlier, yet were never approved. Doesn't that seem odd?

Could it be that Sun paid off members of the OSI community to push their license through?

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9 1 35

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:91 37

Hmmmmm..... interesting.

They forgot...

[Vo0k]

For classic corporate licenses, the priorities of license convenience are like this:
1. The corporation. It's all about the profit to the corporation, isn't it?
2. The customer. Sure we want to attract the customer to buy the product, and the license is partially responsible...
3. The developer. Actually, pretty much the license only takes all the rights away from the developer... They are compensated for that - in form of salary.

For Open Source/Free Software, the licenses must be written in exactly opposite order.
1. The developer. If there's nobody to write the software, nobody will be able to use it.
2. The user. It's for users, and the idea is user is free to do what they want with the software, so let's give it.
3. The corporations. Actually, protecting the program against abuse by corporations.

Of course, SUN as a corporation, wanted the first kind of license. GPL, as the second kind, obviously didn't meet their expectations. What SUN forgot though, is that the goals their license meets are straight opposite to goals -expected- by Open Source developers. A corporate license in service of a corporation, taking some rights away from the customer and many rights away from the developer, while the developer isn't compensated for that in any way?

The difference is that a GNU developers still "own" code they wrote. They retain all rights to the code. SUN's license says, "You will be assimilated. All your code are belong to us."

Re:Wow were SUN

[mepr]

sun, and their servers, are not going anywhere, unless the military goes bankrupt, and the banking industry, and ...

Re:Wow were SUN

[eviltypeguy]

...so lets act like we're open source!

Gee, I didn't hear people complaining when they opened the source to Open Office, their grid control, or any number of other things.

For [ insert deity of choice here ]'s sake, the CDDL IS AN OPEN SOURCE LICENSE. Certified by the OSI no less! "act like". Ppffttt....

Just because it isn't GPL, or BSD doesn't mean it isn't open source or that they're "acting".

People like you are going to get a few million lines of code stuffed in their mouth as revenge when OpenSolaris comes sometime before the end of this quarter.

Groklaw article

[sbszine]

Gee, I didn't hear people complaining when they opened the source to Open Office, their grid control, or any number of other things.

Open Office was a great contribution, but sadly this is not more of the same. See PJ's comments on the CDDL [groklaw.net] for details.

Re:Wow were SUN

[mcc]

Gee, I didn't hear people complaining when they opened the source to Open Office, their grid control, or any number of other things.

Yes. In fact, one would not have heard complaining about those things. In fact one would have generally noticed they were welcomed quite enthusiastically.

Yet people seem to be complaining about the CDDL releases quite a lot.

Do you think this maybe might indicate there is some sort of difference between the two situations?

Re:Wow were SUN

[SunFan]

What about OpenSolaris implies lock-in, and who modded this insightful? In fact, there was a mention at Blastwave that some people are interested in a PowerPC port of OpenSolaris. That's on top of all the x86 hardware it runs on, along with all the SPARC hardware.

Re:Wow were SUN

[Martin Marvinski]

OpenSolaris is completely open! You can create your own OpenSolaris Distro! Casper H. S. Dik, one of the OpenSolaris community advisory board members talks more about the CDDL. He basically states the CDDL is the MPL without some of the restrictions..

An example he gives is the right for the Mozilla foundation to revoke the MPL and the requirement to have lawsuits settled in California (which would be bad for international users). That is why SUN didn't use the MPL.

SUN enginner Alan Coopersmith points out in comp.unix.solaris that anyone can create an OpenSolaris distro.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.unix.so la ris/search?group=comp.unix.solaris&q=Alan+Coopersm ith+cheapbytes+Opensolaris&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search +this+group

Re:Wow were SUN

[Martin Marvinski]

One more thing. Joerg Schilling, famous for creating Linux's cdrecord program is creating his own OpenSolaris Distro called SchilliX. http://schillix.berlios.de/ Blastwave.org, a website that contains free software for Solaris users is also creating an OpenSolaris distro according to the regulars of the usenet group comp.unix.solaris. A benefit of OpenSolaris is that it will have a proper cdrecord functionality. Again SUN Engineer and OpenSolaris community advisory board member Casper H. S. Dik says th

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:At the very least...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Open Source is a necessary, but not sufficent, condition. As it is, Solaris is closed tight. No cross-fertilization possible. They might run Gnome, and use the GNU toolchain, but what they "open" is only open to their customers. Its useless to the rest of the world.

Re:At the very least...

[As Seen On TV]

Necessary but not sufficient for what? For popular adoption? Clearly not [microsoft.com]. For overwhelming commercial success? Clearly not [apple.com].

Just what, exactly, are you suggesting that your own personal pet political philosophy is necessary for?

Re:At the very least...

[edwdig]

but what they "open" is only open to their customers. Its useless to the rest of the world.

The point of opening the code was to make Solaris better, not to make Linux/*BSD/whatever better.

Re:At the very least...

[Xtifr]

But it's not going to work very well for that, either. Linux has a huge repository of drivers for all sorts of assorted devices. Solaris/x86 has a serious lack of HW drivers. By choosing a GPL-incompatible license, Sun has seriously hampered their ability to make a better Solaris.

Now don't get me wrong. I like Solaris. I've used it a lot, and hope to continue using it. But I think Sun really shot themselves in the foot over this one. I think you're right that they chose a GPL-incompatible license be

Re:At the very least...

[_damnit_]

IANAL, but I didn't see anything that precluded including GPL drivers with OpenSolaris. Sun added the ability to use Xfree86 drivers with Solaris 9. Why couldn't they accomplish much the same with any other type of driver? They could include them with the other disk of GNU tools they already include.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:At the very least...

[MarkWatson]

I agree with you. I would like to see the new GPL license be exactly like the current one with the single addition of a patent protection (I liked the "if you pee in the pool, then you have to get out" quote in the original article).

I have been following (a little) the www.fsf.org new GPL stuff - although it might be technically better to spend years getting the new GPL 'just right', as a social issue I think that people would have an easier time understanding "it is just the old license with the 'pee in t

Re:Is this about drivers ?

[SunFan]

IBM isn't open sourcing AIX, or trying to.

That's probably because they can't. Sun started working on OpenSolaris five years ago, building upon the big UNIX license they got back in the early 90s.

Sure they ride the linux wave for corporate profit, but they put alot of cash into building that wave too.

Sun is doing the exact same thing with many (even GPL) projects. Sun pays people to work on OpenOffice.org. They do the same for GNOME. Sun even supports their middleware stack on Linux. Rumor has it they'll open source their middleware, too.

Their motives are different.

Red Hat and IBM are publically trade for-profit companies. Their motives are all the same. Why else would Red Hat go the RHEL/Fedora route? Also, Solaris has always been there, and Sun is only improving it (they certainly aren't taking anything away).

I don't see a double standard at all.

Really? You don't see all the different definitions of 'freedom' flying around? The slanted importance placed on 'GPL compatibility'? Those are some pretty impressive blinders.

Re:The CDDL is just fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell them that the Mozilla Public License used by Firefox is GPL incompatible and they have no problem with it.

That is because Firefox is also available under the GPL.

And many people refused to accept or help with Mozilla development until alternate licensing terms to the MPL were introduced.

Or what about Apache's

This is a new development and itself caused serious problems.

cddl might not be the biggest problem

[lanc]

...but have a look at the http://opensolaris.org/ [opensolaris.org] site:

Soon, you'll be able to download the OpenSolaris distribution. For now -- just to prove that we're serious -- we've made available the source code to DTrace; it's available here under the CDDL License.

sure. This stands on that page since months or so. Where is the code?

Re:cddl might not be the biggest problem

[ievans]

If you looked at the links on the left hand side of the page, you'd see a button called Roadmap, which points here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/roadmap/index.html [opensolaris.org]

Second quarter, 2005 is when the source will be available for the core OS (non-essential stuff will be released sometime later). It's the beginning of the second quarter now, so sometime between now and the end of June the source will be up.

-i

Re:Undefined abbreviation

[iggymanz]

that's good, they can define the term in the dupe story (elimination of dupes would be too much like actually functioning as an editor)