Nice to see Greg
, Sun's CTO, blogging, eh? And his first
today was on OpenSolaris
eWeek picked up on Greg's blog and wrote an utterly fascinating article
CTO: New License Protects Developer Rights
. And it's rather telling
how eWeek characterizes Sun
, Greg, HP, Linus Torvalds
, and OpenSolaris
First the eWeek writer, Peter Galli, quotes Greg's blog from today
software is fundamentally about developer freedom," Papadopoulos said.
want developers to freely use any of the Open Solaris code that we
developed for their purposes without any fear of IP [intellectual
property] infringement of Sun: either patent or copyright. We chose a
license, the CDDL, an improvement of MPL [Mozilla Public License], that
clearly and explicitly gives that freedom," he said.
Then Galli quotes Linus Torvalds from this
December 13, 2004
Torvalds said he sees no such freedom in the license choice, telling
eWEEK recently that Sun "wants to
keep a moat against the barbarians at the gate."
"I think there are parallels with the
Java 'we'll control the process' model," he said. "I personally think
that their problem is that they want to control the end result too
much, and because of that, they won't get any of the real advantages of
Ok, it's a really old quote, but at least it's characterized as an old
quote with the "recently" reference. But my question is this: why did
eWeek feel the need to recycle an old quote from two months ago
in the first place? It's just odd. Especially since Linus commented
on OpenSolaris and CDDL in CRN just last week
and said this:
all looks good. I was disappointed in their Java work, it was a
complete disaster, and Sun took control of it," Torvalds told CRN,
alluding to the Java Community Process. "But CDDL is different.
Everything is in place for it to work well."
So, not only does Galli not mention Torvalds' more recent positive
statements in CRN, but he then juxtaposes Greg's recent comments
directly with Torvalds' comments from two months ago, giving the reader
the impression that the two men are debating when they clearly are not:
comments posted to his first "official" blog on Monday and titled "My views on open
source," Papdopoulos disagreed, further defending
the CDDL by saying that
complementary to developer freedoms are developer rights. He said code
developers do have rights to the code they have developed, as this is,
after all, the fruit of their labor.
I don't know about you, but I hate it when reporters do this.
Next Galli recycles some negative comments from HP from that very same December 13,
attribute them as such
. So, we are led to believe that these
comments from HP are recent. They are not.
of Sun's largest competitors are welcoming the dissention over the
CDDL. Efrain Rovira, worldwide director of Linux marketing at
Hewlett-Packard Co., in Palo Alto, Calif., told eWEEK that he enjoys
competing with Sun when it continues to make mistakes such as this.
"They will not be able to build a
viable community to support Open Solaris if they use the CDDL," Rovira
said. "What they are saying to the community about their support for
open source and Linux is that they are half pregnant.
"There are no half measures here: You
either are or you aren't. This is part of the schizophrenic attitude we
continue to see coming out of Sun," he said.
But Papadopoulos said developers could
take any or all of the Solaris modules and, if they respected the basic
license terms of propagating it and making public any improvements or
bug fixes, they could "do with it as they please."
Did you catch that last paragraph? Galli now has Greg debating HP --
separated by two months in time but clearly positioned otherwise.
Next Galli offers more of Greg's blog from today:
it any product. Build your own custom distributions. Intermix with any
other code you wish -- assuming that code lets you do it. You can do
any of that, and you get a grant to any patents we might have covering
our code. That's an explicit part of the license," he said.
The only thing Sun asks in exchange
was the same thing that Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free
Software Foundation and author of the GPL, and Torvalds and every other
open-source developer asked in exchange: "that the license be honored,"
Ok, fine. But now Galli goes back in time again and recycles a quote
from Cybersource, which can be found not only in that December
article but also in a January 19,
article as well:
some users said they disagree with that assessment. "I suspect Sun
would be overjoyed if open-source software continued to flourish, but
Linux somehow vanished from the scene," said Con Zymaris, CEO of
Cybersource Pty. Ltd., a Linux and open-source solutions company in
"I will now have to choose between
supporting development and adding momentum to Open Solaris or to Linux.
I will choose Linux. Our customers have."
By the way, if you read Torvalds' comments from the December
article, you can find the very same comments recycled in
article as well.
This is all very confusing, isn't it? All this cutting and pasting and
recycling of parts to artificially create a debate across time that
simply never took place. Interesting choices the writers and editors at
eWeek are making these days, don't you think? I wonder, what agenda is
eWeek pushing here?