From the article Open Source Foes I quote below a few parts:

You see the huge differences?

I don't like it much... :tfou:

Rijik.

It looks like they want to open Solaris, but in a way that protects it from being used outside CDDLd projects. I guess they only want community to help them develop Solaris, but forbid them to use its code elsewhere. They will take the benefits of being open source, but stay closed in a sense.

And if someone derives something useful from their code he looses the patent protection, so Sun can actually sue him and get his code?

I don't like this either...

There is a good, clarifying article by Richard Stallman on this issue.

It seems that he also doesn't like this ...

Well, it's not to wonder. Even though i'm not a great licensing expert, CDDL sounds like a big scheme whose primary beneficiory is Sun Inc. like you described in your post quoted below.

That is a good observation. It seems the same way to me.

Even though this license is based on MPL, the addition of the patents related clauses and this what they call "reusability" is probably exactly what makes it at least troublesome to the free software community with free software principles.

I don't think i want to use OpenSolaris even when it get's released.

Thx
Dan

Apart from the licensing issues there remains another question: How much of the Solaris code will actually be made available?

Why is that not a trivial question? Well, basically because not all of Solaris was done by Sun. I'll dig into some history now. First, there was SunOS. SunOS was not completely "self-bred" but based on BSD code. With SunOS 5, Sun decided to switch over to the Unix codebase (yeah, we're talking about real UNIX here). Therefore they bought a license for UNIX System V Release 4 (from whoever owned Unix at that time, my guess would be AT&T) and consequently renamed SunOS 5 to Solaris 2.

Logically, even later versions of Solaris may contain significant amounts of original Unix source code. Even if most of the original code has been replaced by home-bred code there may still be places where tiny pieces of SysVR4 code is tightly mingled with new code. Sun has a license to use that code but I guess whoever owns SysVR4 now (either SCO or Novell) may well object Sun making that code available (under whatever OSI-approved license).

Sun is currently claiming that only minor parts of Solaris may not become OpenSolaris. I doubt that. If SysVR4 code is closely mingled with Sun's home-bred code than they'll have to rip out portions of code all over the place, making the OpenSolaris code base nearly unusable.

I just wonder why all those hype-magnets of journalists haven't bothered to ask Sun any questions regarding that specific topic. My guess is that OpenSolaris is well in for a Vaporware award next year *ggg*

I second that guess. :-D I mean, who's really gonna use that new OpenSolaris thing under that mumbo jumbo of a license aside from, probably very small number of, some solaris freaks..

We have GPL that is working excellent and Linux licensed under it. As a second choise we have GPL alike licenses and BSD. Wh need CDDL and CDDL'd software? Who needs something that's pretty much an "open source" lull to the development and community centralized under and around Sun Inc.

They are just trying to be "smart" and use this "new open source thing" to somehow bring the old days of glory back. That's what they all are doing actually, counting IBM and Novell in as well. These are all companies that hold an anti-weight to the Microsoft empire and that were also all once beaten by that empire. They are not certainly doing business with "open source" and linux because they *love* it, but because they think that might be a way for them to stay in the game, bring back the old glory, compete and maybe outcompete their old times enemy: MS.

If IBM, Sun or even Novell was in the shoes of MS, it's a good bet that they'd be calling linux and free open source software an enemy and pushing against it with all of its power.

What's up to us is not to fall into belief that these companies truly love us until they truly prove so by completely dismissing their patents and turn to complete copyleft-oriented business (becoming a free information companies). The only company that can be truly considered a free software company is RedHat. Even though some of you might put RedHat along with other folks, the fact is that RedHat was founded within the free software world and succeeded as a free software company. They have no patents, their software is GPL'd free software and their revenue comes from distribution and other services.

If i'd be asked to point to the existing company that proves that free software as a business model works: i'd point to our good old RedHat.

EDIT: To be fair, the above about RedHat applies to other similar free software companies such as Mandrakesoft.

Thanks
Daniel

I think that what happened was that originally (at least, according to the initial rumors), Solaris was going to be available under the GPL. However, there were comments everywhere that people were not going to elaborate on Solaris, but would use the different components of Solaris to develop Linux, the kernel, and GNU/Linux the operative system as a whole.

In a way for that NOT to happen, Sun created the CDDL for two purposes.

1. To make OpenSolaris available as free software (or open source) but making it incompatible with the GPL. That's why they chose to model it after the MPL, because next to the GPL is one of the most popular licenses, and it is incompatible with the GPL. This would prevent any modules and programs of OpenSolaris to be integrated either as part of Linux, or as part of GNU/Linux.

2. Also the MPL deals with patent issues, and the CDDL got along with it in order for their patent strategy. So again, people wouldn't use their code to develop Linux and GNU/Linux, and to prevent people deriving an alternate operative system from OpenSolaris, the same way there are many operative systems derived from BSD.

So, what Sun did, which for me was going to be an important step, is not that important at all. What was the purpose of OpenSolaris anyway, if most of the free software and open source movements are ardently discouraged at Sun's strategy. How many will join and participate developing OpenSolaris... I'm afraid not that many programmers.

Let's see what happens, if in the future Sun makes its policy more flexible.

I wish to make a correction. RedHat *does* own patents. However, RedHat's policy is to use these patents for two purposes:

1. To have access to other patents.

2. For defensive purposes, just in case some company wishes to attack using software patents.

RedHat has made a promise to the free and open source communities that such patents will not be used against open source developers in any way, not even other open source companies. The official position of RedHat is to be against software patents.

These are some interesting points above, about the reasons for which Sun did what they did with OpenSolaris..

So, basically, they saw, or should i rather say, they were *afraid* that they cannot actually compete with Linux on the same playing field and so they created a competing playing field along with the competing operating system. That "playing field" is of course CDDL. But anyway, i'm repeating what's already been said, in other words.

I however simply don't think they will pull it out so "easily". CDDL is not very liked among programmer nor is Solaris presenting too much of an attractive option for many GNU/Linux users to switch to it. If they ever consider any other operating system for use on servers, it's usually FreeBSD.. Solaris just doesn't have it's place in the game it seems.. Will that change? Hardly.

But as i already said somewhere, let them try. If they want to compete, let them. As long as they are not doing anything that will *unfairly* and unethically endanger Free Software i don't think Free Software community should be too keen on them. And unfortunately, there's already been some FUD favoring OpenSolaris - that however, is not acceptable.

Yes, i was wrong there..

Some would say that them owning patents and then promising the community to be faithful is not something that should be easily trusted just because they are a business, a corporation.

However, maybe those who think so miss one important fact: RedHat has built their business from Free Software. They base their success on the success of GNU/Linux, Free Software and Open Source community as a whole. In a way, if that community goes down, RedHat goes down and if that community goes up, RedHat follows. Thus, it is not only that RedHat wants to protect Free Software and pledge to it out of kindness and appeal to the community, but because that community is what they depend on. From that point of view, their promise and the purpose for keeping patents may very well be trusted.

Not only that, but RedHat may be held an excellent example of how Free Software and Free Information economics can and does function! It is competition through cooperation, profiting without restricting, self interest satisfied through cooperation, not by shutting out cooperation and competition.. Many might actually be dismissing this great example too easily.. :yes:

This license is accepted by the Free Software Foundation as a free software license:

... from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html