20070630 Saturday June 30, 2007

links for 2007-06-30


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070629 Friday June 29, 2007

Welcome to GPLv3

GPL v3 Launch Conference

Living as I do in the UK, the gadget news that has the US media all spun-up today is of no interest to me. But a slightly lower-profile story - the release of the GNU General Public License version 3 by the FSF - is a satisfying end to a long journey. When we embarked on the review of Eben and Richard's new license a year and a half ago, I can admit to being a little sceptical. I assumed what we were about to see was a plebiscite, with the appearance of review but little real change. I'm delighted that's not what happened. Instead, we saw a wide, diverse and representative group drawn together to great effect.

Open Process

The actual process has been substantial, inclusive and largely public. It involved an initial conference with presentations and discussions, followed by the formation of a number of "discussion committees" which gathered representatives from all interest groups that were willing to participate (sadly not all were).

Committee B was where we corporate types met, and my colleagues David Marr and Damien Eastwood expended a tremendous amount of effort along with the large assembly of other company representatives discussing the license with Eben Moglen and the FSF. Both Damien and David have remarked in public and private that Eben and Richard Fontana have been consistent in their effort to remain available for discussion and dialogue, even (and especially) when difficult legal issues confronted Committee B.

That's not to say it's ended up framed the way everyone would want. The new license intentionally uses language aimed more at legal professionals, so some community members will find it difficult. And despite the brave words you'll hear from some of the corporate participants today the truth is that GPLv3 will cause plenty of soul-searching. I suggest measuring support by the lines of code licensed under GPLv3 rather than by the kind words spoken...

But the results of this open process are impressive. From an initial document that seemed pretty doctrinaire and exhibited clear problems for many of the businesses whose investment in staff and communities contribute so much to Free software, we have ended up in a much better place. The document is as balanced as a GPL revision can be, especially with the rough edges of the provisions affecting DRM smoothed out. It's especially pleasing to see the agreement between the FSF and the Apache Software Foundation.

The late work attempting to snuff out the sort of shady practice seen between some vendors was an unfortunate disruption, and I'm still waiting to see what the very, very last revisions to the language relating to software patents look like - I understand the text has seen revisions right up to the last minute. In the last draft there was scope for friendly-fire casualties caused by the traps set around software patent licensing; I hope that's been cured.

Sun and GPLv3

So the question I'm expecting to be faced with repeatedly over the next few weeks is, "will Sun use the GPLv3?" I think it's likely we will use it, yes, but I'm not clear yet for which code and when. We'll be carefully analysing the balance of benefits and risks in the released version of the GPLv3 and I'm not expecting to be in a position to bring a recommendation to our executive team for several weeks. I'm keen for us to take a leading position, though, even if some are sceptical of our motives.

Sun is in a position of stewardship of a large number of copyrights for Free software, and it would be a mistake for us to assume that just because on paper we own the copyrights that therefore we are free to do whatever we want. We're not. In communities where Sun is the steward (like OpenJDK and OpenSolaris), contributors are asked to share their rights with the community via Sun in part so that license changes like this are possible. While Sun holds those aggregated rights on trust, it would be a mistake to assume Sun can just change the license without any form of community discussion.

As a consequence, the licence choices for those communities will not be changing yet. If it happens, you can expect to see discussion in the affected community first. Is this a vote against GPLv3? No. It's a mark of respect for the trust placed in Sun by those communities.

Congratulations!

I regard the GPLv3 as a great achievement by the FSF in particular and by the greater open source community of Free software communities. The discussions were long, professional and detailed. The process was inclusive and respectful while retaining the ability to be driven forward through clear leadership. The result is a strong and market-changing document.

My hearty congratulations to Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and all of the many, many participants in the process - thank-you for including us. The unity displayed is an example that I hope will be embraced, repeated and improved upon to yield an even more vibrant community of open source communities working on Free software with mutual understanding, respect and unity of purpose.


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot

links for 2007-06-29


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070628 Thursday June 28, 2007

links for 2007-06-28


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070627 Wednesday June 27, 2007

links for 2007-06-27


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070626 Tuesday June 26, 2007

links for 2007-06-26


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070625 Monday June 25, 2007

links for 2007-06-25


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070622 Friday June 22, 2007

links for 2007-06-22


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070621 Thursday June 21, 2007

links for 2007-06-21


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070620 Wednesday June 20, 2007

Got to China

I've reached Guangzhou in China ready for the China Open Source World conference tomorrow where the organisers have arranged a stunny line-up of speakers. The journey here was pretty ugly - Lufthansa cancelled my flight, put me on Air France via Paris and then the connection was delayed too, making it touch-and-go right up to midnight. I'll be pretty busy here and in Seoul on Friday for LinuxWorld Korea so my apologies if I'm not very responsive in the busy thread here and on OSNews.


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070619 Tuesday June 19, 2007

links for 2007-06-19


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070618 Monday June 18, 2007

Hardware Archaeology

Cactus Pillow

One of the running themes of Free/open source software has been how easily drivers for chipsets in old (and often not-so-old) hardware can be created. Some semiconductor vendors keep a tight hold on the details of their chips, and discourage F/OSS developers strongly. The recent news that Open Sound is available as Free software under both GPLv2 and CDDL is a great step forward, and the availability of drivers for R500-family AMD video cards is also fantastic.

As a long-term manufacturer of fantastic hardware, Sun is frequently approached by groups of developers looking for documentation for the chips used in its products. These days, Sun's newest chips are open source already, and there's a good web-site for documentation for current chips. This has already resulted in great things.

More of an issue, though, are the older systems. In plenty of cases, rather than using I/O chips sold on the open market by companies like Broadcom, nVidia, and ATI, Sun's engineers have actually designed chips specifically for the work at hand. Unlike those companies which sell I/O chips for a living, and thus have a moral duty to provide complete, externally presentable documentation for their chips, Sun's engineers often had no business need to document the chip design for public consumption (or, in quite a few older cases, at all!) Even worse, in some cases the chips Sun has made use designs and ideas acquired from third parties as a 'trade secret'. In those cases, public documentation just can't be made available.

So what happens when people ask for documentation? Well, there are at least five cases:

  1. The product in question may be past it's end-of-life date and there's actually no team anywhere in Sun that can answer the question.
  2. The documentation may not exist. Writing it would require costly reverse engineering (even if people with the skills to do so are still at Sun).
  3. It may exist for internal use, but releasing it outside Sun would need legal review to check for 'trade secrets' belonging to others. That legal review is time consuming and costs real money. And the answer may turn out to be "can't release, can't name the company that's obstructing us".
  4. It may exist and it may be possible to release it. Doing that, though, is actually a non-zero cost since usually the documentation is in an old format of some kind.
  5. It may actually exist in an online-ready form.

The question has once again been raised (over on Jonathan's blog) of whether Sun is acting in bad faith over interface documentation for older systems. I've done a cursory check and I believe answers of "no, we can't help" fall almost exclusively in the first four classes above and mostly in the first two. But I do understand why passions are raised and scepticism is rife.

Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent. Watch this space!

Update Aug 27: The new FOSS Open Hardware Documentation wiki is now open for business.


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot

links for 2007-06-18


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot
20070615 Friday June 15, 2007

links for 2007-06-15


technorati del.icio.us digg slashdot