IBM Bidding for Sun Microsystems: Linux and MySQL - The Big Winners?

It might not even go through all the way.

Much back-and-forth currently going on at this, e.g., within /. 's piece 'Sun In Talks To Be Acquired By IBM' at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/18/1213209 and ZDNet's counterpoint piece 'IBM buying Sun Microsystems makes no sense, it's a red herring' at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2857

Seems ironic that almost two-and-a-half years ago, IBM itself was shooting down Sun Microsystems at LinuxWorld '06. From the piece 'IBM takes potshots at OpenSolaris' found at http://news.cnet.com/IBM-takes-potshots-at-OpenSolaris/2100-...

Quoting:SAN FRANCISCO--OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders, executives from rival IBM say.

"Sun holds it all behind the firewall. The community sees nothing," Dan Frye, the IBM vice president who runs the company's Linux Technology Center, said Tuesday in an interview at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo. "It's a facade. There's lots of marketing, but no community to speak of."

Sun could do "simple things" to build a real OpenSolaris community if it were serious about doing so, Frye said. "They would push their design discussions out into the forums, so people can see what's going on," he suggested.

Since IBM's LW '06 cutdown of Sun Microsystems here, CEO Schwartz has continued to tout the "corrective changes" he's been making, see http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/

Quite the irony indeed!

Yes, but turn it on it's head. IBM could do the right thing here and turn OpenSolaris (and OpenOffice.org which has the same problem) into true open source products.

@Sander,

OpenOffice.org IS a "true open source" product.

Yes and no. The same thing that is said about OpenSolaris is said about OpenOffice.org. Sun is keeping the reigns too tight.

If OpenOffice.org was really 'open, it would be licensed under the GPL, period.

If its not, then by 'true definition' it is not a 'true open source' project.

@Scott: I disagree. OSI lists many licenses that meet the OSD other than the GPL. The GPL is one among many valid choices.

Quoting: OpenSolaris isn't a true open-source project, but rather a "facade," because Sun Microsystems doesn't share control of it with outsiders,

I've heard that criticism from volunteer devs who wanted to contribute, but were locked out. So it seems the moral is, even the freest license can be foiled by pesky human shenanigans.

Ok Caitlyn, I will give you that. The OSI does recognize many different licenses as 'Open Source'. So I will change my statement to this:

Is the source code freely distributable?, if it isn't, then its not a 'true open source' project. No open source code, no Open Source project.

If I have a standard that is it. If I cannot get my grubby little hands on the source code, then its not 'true' Open Source.

edit: I am not saying I am right, I am just saying that is my standard for what I consider "Open Source".

wow scott, those are grubby hands... are you a coal miner?

I basically agree with Scott's revised standard FWIW.

Are grubby hands better than idle hands?

So literal you are all of a sudden..oh wait..it not all of a sudden..I knew that..lol.

And no, they are not grubby, they are strong and slightly callused from playing drums for 23 years..

I can't believe you two got me to talk about my hands..oh how you abuse me so..;-)