All the News That's Fit to Print

I love finding out what I'm doing by reading trade publications. According to eWeek, apparently we're going to license OpenSolaris under GPLv3. I have to say I was surprised because it just ain't so. This is primarily due to the fact that the terms of GPLv3 aren't final, thus making it impossible for us to commit to it. It would be like signing a contract with blanks to be filled in later. So, with all due respect to eWeek, I feel I have to go on record to say the article isn't correct.

However, while I'm on the subject, let me repeat what I've been saying since we issued Java under GPLv2. We are in active discussions with the community regarding the detailed terms of GPLv3 and I'm very pleased with the current course and speed. As v3 is finalized, we'll work with the community to give very serious consideration to dual-licensing OpenSolaris (under CDDL and GPLv3). Until it is completed, we just can't make a commitment. And you wouldn't either. So, I'm afraid that on this particular topic, this is a no-news day.

On the other hand, it was a big news day for Solaris. Check out these stories from ServerWatch and InfoWorld.

Comments:

On the subject of Sol 10, where has the documentation for Logical Domains Manager got to? I failed to find it within docs.sun.com. This is not a -ve comment, I am just waiting for it to land online since 11/06 :-)

Posted by Neil Corlett on January 17, 2007 at 07:54 AM PST #

Solaris + GPLv3 is quite an interesting concept. I believe Linus is missing the boat on the DRM issue that the GPL3 hopes to address among other thing; and that RMS will be proven right on the need for GPLv3 as he has about the 'Java trap' ( not really anymore of course, thanks Sun :] ) BitKeeper etc. I wasn't all that interested or familiar with Solaris (and Sparc) before, but upon reading some of the Slashdot comments on the eweek (such as programs that can run on Linux can run on Solaris too) I am much more interested in Solaris now. If Solaris goes GPL3 that may seal the deal to my moving from Ubuntu.

Posted by Surfed on From Slashdot on January 17, 2007 at 09:47 AM PST #

And of course, you (Sun) wouldn't unilaterally make such a license change without first consulting the CAB and OpenSolaris developers in general, right?

Posted by Rich Lowe on January 17, 2007 at 02:00 PM PST #

Just read that Sun is the #1 Contributor of Open Source software on the planet. Thought I'd stop by and say THANKS. I'm not a developer myself, but I figure something I've used at some time in my life has probably been touched by some of this code. So, yeah... good on ya.

Posted by Jooks on January 17, 2007 at 04:02 PM PST #

Can I just remind the FSF fans that dual-licencing with the CDDL means that Tivoization of OpenSolaris will still be possible? 99% of the discussion about this rumour doesn't seem to realise that.

Posted by NK on January 17, 2007 at 06:10 PM PST #

What is the \*benefit\* of offering it under GPL3? existing GPL code can't be imported (even new GPL3 code) unless it is also dual licensed unless the CDDL is effectively nullified or you have a two-speed system where you can compile out the GPL3 code. I'd really hoped that Sun and the OS community could make it the system that 'just works' and uses the defined kernel interfaces to play nicely with binary module vendors whether graphics cards, RAID, clustering, or version control filesystems. Something that makes MY life easier, rather than some bunch of kernel techs' lives easier. I just don't see why. Now, making the libc dual licencable, that may make sense after the fuss about the Nexenta install bootstrap.

Posted by James Mansion on January 17, 2007 at 07:27 PM PST #

15 years ago, Linux was very poor performace system and MINIX was better performance system than Linux but they chose Linux. 10 years ago, Linux performance was obviously behind FreeBSD but they chose Linux. 5 years ago, Solaris was better performance than Linux but they chose Linux. Why? my answer is that Linux have been protected by GPL. GPLv3 is more powerful than GPLv2. Can you image Solaris/GPLv3 is powerfully protected more than Linux/GPLv2? I swear you if GPLv3 licensed GNU/Solaris is appeared, they never hesitate to move from GNU/Linux to GNU/Solaris. Actually, Solaris is a name of system. So, how about “Olem” for new name instead of Solaris? GNU/Olem, g-olem. Golem means “raw material”, and also “stupid” as well as gawk. And see the Pokemon Golem. That shape is just like a kernel!!

Posted by Hironobu SUZUKI on January 17, 2007 at 08:56 PM PST #

To the comment about Sun working with the community before making the decision to dual license, the answer is of course yes. I'm very aware that, as of the day we made OpenSolaris available, we were part of a new community. And like any other member of the community, must work within the community and garner support of members/committers before any change like this can be made. Glad you noted it.

Posted by Rich Green on January 17, 2007 at 11:57 PM PST #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
About

richgreen

Search

Categories
Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today