open source commitment?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Dec 01, 2005 9:00 AM EDT |
whoever wrote the headline did not read the article. The CDDL is not open at all- all rights to contributed code remain with Sun. Any OSS developer who falls for it should be committed. |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2005 9:15 AM EDT |
Carla -- Are you sure about the rights to contributed code? I'll admit to giving the license only a skim (at lunch now -- no time for deep study), but I didn't see anything to that effect. Also, CDDL is an approved OSI Open Source license AND categorized by the FSF as a free license with limited copyleft. FSF claims that incompatibility in CDDL and GPl means modules licensed under one cannot be linked with the other, but FSF has made some dubious claims in its time. |
| tuxchick Dec 01, 2005 9:33 AM EDT |
OMG I could be wrong, which means.... oh never mind, I'll let subtext handle that conclusion. http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html |
| sbergman27 Dec 01, 2005 4:03 PM EDT |
CDDL is really no less free than GPL. Like the GPL it has teeth. And like the GPL it is stubborn and very particular about just what other licenses it will associate with. The "problem" is that the two are incompatible, precluding mixing source code from both into one work. The GPL bears at much responsibility for the incompatibility as does the CDDL. Now, I haven't checked, but I'd be very surprised if it were not Sun policy to require a joint copyright agreement for any code which makes it into the "Official" version of Sun projects licensed under CDDL. MySQL AB and Trolltech do this with their GPL licensed software so that they (and only they) can do proprietary stuff with it on the side. Despite the constant flow of contradictory, self-contratulatory, and just plain bizarre statements from Sun regarging Sun and Linux and OSS, they really are a player in the open-source world. Like it or not, Linux on the desktop would be a nonstarter if it weren't for Sun's efforts with OOo. I was as skeptical as skeptical can be about their open-sourcing of Solaris. I figured they'd release under some softened derivative of SCSL and claim to the world that it was Open Source. Today, I freely admit that I was wrong and give credit where credit is due. |
| jdixon Dec 01, 2005 4:38 PM EDT |
> The GPL bears at much responsibility for the incompatibility as does the CDDL. Well, since the CDDL didn't exist when the GPL was written, but the GPL did exist when the CDDL was written, I'll have to disagree. The GPL incompatiblity was obviously a deliberate (and unsurprising) decision on Sun's part. |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2005 4:40 PM EDT |
Steve - That's how it looks to me. I would have to study the license in more depth and time than I have brains cells for at the moment. I have learned to take FSF incompatibility claims with a large grain of salt. Doesn't mean they aren't right; just means I don't want to take their word for it. |
| sbergman27 Dec 01, 2005 4:56 PM EDT |
Dean, considering that binary modules are not really allowed by the license, but only by the grace of Torvalds anyway, I'd say that Linus and the gang have the final say on that matter, not the FSF. At any rate, the way I see it, the Linux and Solaris kernels are likely so different internally that the ability or inability to cut and paste source code is a moot point. The important thing about Solaris' release is the ability to cross pollinate *ideas*. Of course the promise not to sue for patent infringement only applies to work done with the CDDL code, but that's a different topic. |
| sbergman27 Dec 01, 2005 5:00 PM EDT |
My God. What a stupid post I just made. Time for bed, I guess. |
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!