Surprise! Sun creates a new license!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Dec 02, 2004 2:28 PM EDT |
Shock and awe..... (yawn) |
| peragrin Dec 02, 2004 4:41 PM EDT |
From the article >> However, one significant figure in the open-source licensing realm received the license coolly: Mitchell Baker, an attorney and the author of the Mozilla Public License. Part of Sun's agenda has been to have its license replace the MPL, Baker said in a Thursday posting to a mailing list on the Open Source Initiative's Web site. "I've looked at this license and think there are some ways that it simplifies things, but there may also be such other issues with this language that may come up in use. Why the big rush?" Baker asked. |
| sbergman27 Dec 03, 2004 1:55 AM EDT |
Despite the cool reception by Mitchell, this does look like a good faith attempt to come up with a license they can live with for Solaris. Note that the article mentions that Sun declined to comment on whether this is the license under which they want to release Solaris. But it is highly suggestive. The licence may not be GPL compatible, but it does seem to be GPL in spirit, in that it requires "giving back" to the community. So it is neither a "Sun Community Source" like license, nor an ultra-permissive BSD style license. However, the GPL incompatibility is a *big* thing. I'm surprised that they decided to go as far as they have in making the license a real open source license, and then decided to be GPL incompatible. Solaris could really benefit from Linux's extensive set of device drivers. (If you've ever tried to install Solaris x86 on anything but a machine custom built for it, you know what I mean. Their driver support is pathetic.) One possible explanation is that they believe that Solaris has less to gain from cross-pollenation with Linux that Linux has to gain from Solaris. Maybe they don't believe they need access to Linux's device drivers and that access to *BSD's will do just fine. Maybe access to another Unix/Linux's device drivers doessn't really help them that much. I don't know. One thing seems certain to me, though. The best outcome for everyone would be if they would go with something GPL compatible. It would yield a stronger Solaris and a stronger Linux. In fact, there is only one OS I can think of (which I'll allow to remain nameless, but it starts with a 'W') that would come out the worse for it, by comparison. We, the community have, I think, put a bit of pressure on Sun to get this open-sourcing thing done. However, I agree with Mitchell. What's the hurry? If Sun is really sincere, and I'm beginning to think maybe they are, then it's going to require some time on the lists to really hash this thing out, and the GPL compatibility thing is too critical a detail to get wrong. If this thing is done right, it could really be a historical turning point. Or maybe I'm just being a naive, pie in the sky optimist, and there is some dastardly plan afoot to destroy us all. |
| peragrin Dec 03, 2004 2:44 AM EDT |
Actually the community has put pressure on sun to Open Source java, while leaving Solaris closed off. Sun is doing the opposite. I really wonder what happens when(if) IBM releases a JVM that is Open Sourced. The rumors are there, and that will hurt sun in ways they can't comprehend. |
| robT Dec 03, 2004 7:22 AM EDT |
peragrin: One interesting thing that struck me from some other article and your comment was that the IBM JVM appears to possess much better performance than Sun's JVM, which would seem to add fuel to the possible fire you mentioned. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!