Monday February 21, 2005
alanc @ sun.com
Alan Coopersmith’s blog
Random thoughts of a disorganized mind...
(and though it should be obvious, while Sun pays me to think about things, they disclaim any responsibility for these thoughts, nor do I claim what I say matches in any way what Sun thinks)
Loading...
Monday February 21, 2005
CDDL basher needs to learn his license facts
Rich Teer posted a detailed rebuttal to Jason Perlow's recent Linux Magazine attack on the CDDL. Unfortunately, it appears Mr. Perlow doesn't know much about the licenses already used by the software included in Linux distros from one of the quotes Rich highlights:
Perhaps its just me, but does anyone else find it particularly obnoxious that Sun finds it completely acceptable to embrace GPL technologies like GNOME and Xfree86 in Solaris, while at the same time prevents cross-pollination of Solaris technology to GPL projects with the CDDL? Sun's strategy is a one-way street...Perhaps the reason people don't agree is because the statement is wrong on several points. First, XFree86 is not covered by the GPL, but in fact has traditionally been covered by the MIT/X11 license, that is much more like the BSD license than the GPL, and has refused to incorporate any GPL-licensed code. That is until XFree86 4.4, when it adopted a new version of the license that the FSF notes as being GPL-incompatible in its list of open source licenses. (We've actually moved to Xorg in Solaris x86, which while it's based on the XFree86 work, only includes XFree86 code covered by the older license.)
The other point is that while the code being newly released is covered by the CDDL, we honor the licenses for existing code and work with those communities. For instance, our code donations to GNOME projects are covered by the GPL and LGPL as appropriate, and our contributions to X.Org and XFree86 have been under the X11 license. If you look through those code bases you'll find lots of code covered by Sun Microsystems copyrights which we've given back to those communities under their usual terms.
Besides, it hardly seems that a Linux and GPL advocate has much ground to stand on when pontificating about "one way street" licenses - after all, hasn't that been how the GPL has kept Linux and BSD apart for years? Linux can take BSD-licensed code from the BSD projects and use it, but the GPL prevents those projects from taking any code from Linux without changing their license terms - the exact complaint Mr. Perlow makes here about Solaris.
Posted at 11:26PM Feb 21, 2005 by Alan Coopersmith in Solaris | Comments[2]
Subscribe!
Posted by nakee on February 22, 2005 at 04:23 AM PST #
But when you say that GPL projects can use BSD codes , i wonder where you took this wonderful idea !
wwwoffle would be glad to hear they can take leafnode code without legal issues.
I think you mix core code and linking with code.
GPL code can link to BSD code. BSD code can link to LGPL code but not GPL code.
As GPL code can link to CDDL code and the opposite your point seems out of topic. THe problem is not that GPL cannot link to CDDL code but that CDDL is just another incompatible licence , and that there seems nothing useful out of it (except as the ASPL did trying to build its own community without sharing work with other communities , be they BSD, ASPL , GPL ...)
IT is all about fragmentation and what we want. DO we want a "Unix/Linux" community for each company (that s what the flaming came from). Or one community for each economical models:
- GPL = academics input innovation to companies, companies have to give back addons and improvments. Sometime companies give their R&D as GPL to input innovation to the market at large (maybe to create the needed ecological environment, helping ISV to foster its market and improve its products usage).
- BSD = bring innovation from academics to companies , without bothering if the academics get anything back. It made Sun, Microsoft and set IBM and AT&T out of the market. I endorse the GPL not because i dislike the way it helped those companies, but because i saw nothing gave back to Berkeley or MIT (i mean something that has the same value has the input those academics gave to them freely - TCP/IP ...).
ASPL and CDDL does not feet in anything economical nor help with the new problems like patents. That is why i see them as political products which will hurt more than they can help.
I also agree that they are way better than previous Sun and Apple licences. As they are not bad things in themselves like the "share alike" licence from microsoft and NDA licences.
In short , thanks for sharing the open source thinking. But please understand that political issues can hurt. The GPL has some. But RMS himself agreed to LGPL and java linking exception.
If Sun want its own community so be it. But why not learn from the GPL history ? Yes LGPL is dangerous for GPL itself, we may end up with most software LGPLed, thus somewhat more BSD than GPL.
So trying to do like the GPL with CDDL seems childish. The GPL itslef did not win this case.
To go a bit further , GPL, APL (apache), MPL are seen as good as they mostly agree to duale licence. Thus they build their political communities and share with other economical communities.
Thanks for all the great work your company has ever done to build computer age at large (not only open source or free software).
I feel your comany has fully understood the political issues regarding GPL, BSD, Apache. They are buidling their own , that s fine.
But please don't read those licences as a "Jeovah" believer would. Read them in the current economical and social context.
Maybe you unerestimated the power of LGPL, licence exceptions and dual licencing.
As an example of this complexity, my best example is to compare the successes of XUL and gecko.
We have tenth of projects based on geko. Few are on XUL. Do you want sun projects to reach gecko or XUL markets ?
Or is it you that build the market or the market that choose you to build itself ?
Regards
Alban
Posted by Alban Browaeys on February 22, 2005 at 07:01 AM PST #