CDDL?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ahl Feb 28, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
The Red Hat uses a GPL license and the services connected with that distribution, Red Hat Network remains only available to paying customers. Solaris 10, on the other hand, has one of the more confusing, extensive, and restrictive licenses in the software industry. It may be free of charge, but Solaris 10 lacks the freedom in the GPL with its CDDL restrictions. Specifically, what restrictions are you referring to in the CDDL? As far as I can tell, CDDL is actually less restrictive than GPL. Or do you mean simply the restriction that the two can't be mixed without violating the GPL? |
| tadelste Feb 28, 2006 2:10 PM EDT |
You hit one of them which effects how the two licenses cannot work together. It inhibits cross-pollination between Solaris and Linux. That's a detriment and causes factionalization. The idea behind open source is to create code that people can use. CDDL means we'll have pockets of code or buckets of code and a line is drawn down the middle. So, you can imagine why I have a problem with them using GRUB. The got around it, didn't they? Sharing is one of the major advantages of the open-source philosophy. When we heard Sun would make Solaris open-source, it raised the possibility that it could benefit from Linux features such as widespread hardware support, and Linux could gain from Solaris features such as multiprocessor abilities. Obviously Sun wants to contain the code. It's not really open source, it's proprietary. Separate (re)distribution terms for Source Code forms and Executable forms of the software bother a lot of developers. Restriction of distribution of Source Code under the CDDL only. Ability to distribute Executable forms under a license of the distributor's choice, as long as it doesn't limit the recipient's rights in the Source Code form. What's that about? If you sue a copyright holder for patent infringement, you lose your rights to use the code under the license is similar to DMCA. Limits due process. If you are a software distributor, and you got the code from somebody who later turns around and sues Sun, you can lose your rights to the software under the license. Maybe it's not as restrictive as the GPL, but it doesn't encourage a broad community. As far as I'm concerned, since I use and develop for Linux, I would not develop for OpenSolaris. So, you guys don't get the benefit of some seriously important wire line protocols. But I didn't write this article as a treatise on the damn licenses. It's about how stupid the leaders of Sun must be if they would create a mantra like Solaris is a better Linux than Linux. That's crazy and flies in the face of their damn license. It also means a test of intent that I really do not like. So, this is Sun being Sun once again. They want the marketing rights to Linux but refuse to share. |
| ahl Feb 28, 2006 4:38 PM EDT |
So is it fair to say you've backed off your original claim that the GPL is somehow "more free" than the CDDL? (You might want to update the text of your original post). Now I'm curious about this following: Maybe it's not as restrictive as the GPL, but it doesn't encourage a broad community. As far as I'm concerned, since I use and develop for Linux, I would not develop for OpenSolaris. So, you guys don't get the benefit of some seriously important wire line protocols. Is it simply that the GPL isn't compatible with the CDDL that backs your claim that the GPL encourages a broader community? I suppose you'd levy the same charges against like licenses such as the MPL -- though I think you'd have a hard time supporting your claim there that the incompatibility with the GPL makes for a more restrictive community. I understand your point, but it sounds like either you really mean to be advocating for a BSD-style license or you're just unhappy because it's not the license your operating system of preference uses. Or is there some particular aspect of the license that actually inhibits the growth of a community? To your larger point: But I didn't write this article as a treatise on the damn licenses. It's about how stupid the leaders of Sun must be if they would create a mantra like Solaris is a better Linux than Linux. That's crazy and flies in the face of their damn license. I understood Andreessen's statement to mean that Linux had originally planted its flag on being a fast, cheap, reliable OS that ran on commodity hardware and that Solaris was now faster, cheaper, and more reliable also running on commodity hardware. Your breakdown of your favorite Linux features is lovely, but it seems fairly beside the point in the context of the statement. This is not about running a desktop OS, how hard it is to install or how terrific UML is (BTW, UML != Zones); this is from the perspective of a large business customer who wants to deploy an application on a fast, cheap, reliable OS on cheap boxes. |
| Herschel_Cohen Feb 28, 2006 4:56 PM EDT |
You are making a big issue of licenses where that is simply not the issue in the article. Moreover, the reality is that Sun can and will twist you considerably when it is to their advantage if you were their customer. If you want free: hey a BSD license says put my copyright statement in whenever you use my code. Bury it where you like, sell it, give away, extort but give me credit. Well both CDDL and GPL are sissies in comparison to that degree of freedom. What does this have to do with the discussion or for that matter the article you are making so much effort criticize: nothing. Look at this thread for pertinent facts:http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/21826/ not time wasting philosophical arguments about degrees of freedom. If you prefer that I could discuss some statistic mechanics problems pertaining to molecular degrees of freedom if you should demand it. Indeed, it would certainly be more constructive use of our time than were your current efforts lead. |
| Rascalson Feb 28, 2006 6:19 PM EDT |
In regards to "Cuddle": I have not seen any real answers as to why Sun modified the MPL the way they did to create the CDDL. Some of the changes they made make it seem very much like SUN is reserving a Patent hammer to bash in anyone that tries to do anything useful with the OpenSolaris code base outside of Sun's control. In regards to BSD being a more "free" license than either the GPL or CDDL: Nope not really. The BSD because of its huge potential to have a very "one-way" nature is actually less free for both the users, developers, and the code itself. The BSD license is good for those "authors" who specifically choose it knowing full well what they are doing, and it is good for the "one-way" "users" of course. Only the gpl gaurantees freedom for all, except the leechers that is. |
| tadelste Feb 28, 2006 6:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:So is it fair to say you've backed off your original claim that the GPL is somehow "more free" than the CDDL? (You might want to update the text of your original post). One has to wonder why someone would alter the meaning of a post and then tell the author to change his article. I find that interesting. Also, I did not say CDDL was less restrictive. You said that. IMHO, I find the CDDL license egregious. I don't like to pick on a single phrase out of context to make to make a point. That technqiue seems to work on the fringe rather than at the heart of an issue. Marc said what he meant to say. He didn't say that Linux planted a flag. You said that. I also didn't say I "really mean to be advocating for a BSD-style license or [I'm] just unhappy because it's not the license [my] operating system of preference uses". You said that. Some might find that your approach has elements of disinformation in it. The manner in which you asked the original question while avoiding the theme of the article, for example. So, I thought I would acquaint you with some of the techniques from the Intelligence community handbook. 1. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. 2. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. 3. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. 4. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact. 5. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. 6. Change the subject. Usually in connection with another ploy. I think that sums it up. I wish you all the best. I still wonder if any body would miss Sun. After the episode in this thread, I'm sure we could do without them and never miss a beat. Bye |
| tadelste Feb 28, 2006 6:44 PM EDT |
HC - nice interpretation. Rascalson: excellent points. |
| Libervis Feb 28, 2006 8:26 PM EDT |
CDDL is approved by the Free Software Foundation as well as Open Source Initiative as a Free Software License and the Open Source License. It was approved because it meets the most basic conditions as it allows four freedoms. That said, it is probably safe for an end-user to use OpenSolaris without loosing their freedoms. However, CDDL is problematic in that it apparently seems to have schemed it in such a way to put Sun in a favorable position in the community they try to build. It is still at the center instead of being "one among many in the community" as equal. And the incompatibility with GPL seems all too deliberate. It is curious though that Jonathan Schwartz pondered with the idea of putting OpenSolaris under GPLv3. That would be interesting. :) As for BSD, I can see how people can take it as "more free" since people so easily confuse the meaning of "free" and "freedom". I may not be an authority to set the definition and it's your choice to agree or not, but in my view freedom is in effect when there is balance of power. As soon as one has a grant of greater power than he should this balance is lost and the freedom is not what we have. When a developer chooses BSD license he exercises his power (by the copyright law) to grant his software users all powers with only one restriction (attribution), but that way it is the user which has too much power and where the balance is lost, as every user now has the ability to disempower the next person down the path. It is disrupting freedom (that is the balance of power) instead of granting "more of it". There is infact no "more of freedom" as it either is or isn't, we either have or have it not. There is only more or less of *power*, not freedom. Just my take on things. Now back to the real topic. ;) Thanks Daniel |
| ahl Feb 28, 2006 8:45 PM EDT |
tadelste, I really wasn't trying to twist your words around -- I was trying to make sure I understood what you were saying. And I also wasn't trying to detract from the point of your article -- I was looking for (and continue to look for) clarity on one very specific issue. To recap: The article contained this line (and I really hope I'm not taking anything out of context): Solaris 10, on the other hand, has one of the more confusing, extensive, and restrictive licenses in the software industry. It may be free of charge, but Solaris 10 lacks the freedom in the GPL with its CDDL restrictions. I asked what specific restrictions you were referring to in the CDDL: Specifically, what restrictions are you referring to in the CDDL? As far as I can tell, CDDL is actually less restrictive than GPL. Or do you mean simply the restriction that the two can't be mixed without violating the GPL? To which you replied: Maybe it's not as restrictive as the GPL, but it doesn't encourage a broad community. I then (apparently incorrectly) interpreted this as meaning that the CDDL wasn't actually less restrictive, but didn't encourage a community as well as the GPL. You've stated that the CDDL that it is overly restrictive and that it stifles community growth (and I hope I haven't misinterpreted). Can you explain these specific points a little more? Thanks. |
| tadelste Mar 01, 2006 2:15 AM EDT |
Thanks for that clarification ahl. Libervis did an excellent job of articulating my understanding of the restrictions. In my view, the license fits the letter but not the spirit of free software. That's as far as I care to elaborate. |
| milky Mar 01, 2006 7:47 AM EDT |
I know you people really enjoy raising the f-word counter and throwing out the FSFs favourite buzzword twelve times per paragraph, but could you at least please stop implying that it was the CDDL (or whatever other license for that matter) that is oh so incompatible with the GNU GPL (v2), if it is actually the other way round. |
| tadelste Mar 01, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Milky, whatever you say. We people will comply with your request. I'll tell everyone one of the "you people" I know. |
| eric_boutilier Mar 01, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
Libervis, tadelste: Libervis wrote: > ... > However, CDDL is problematic in that it apparently seems to have schemed > it in such a way to put Sun in a favorable position in the community they > try to build. It is still at the center instead of being "one among many > in the community" as equal ... Please elaborate. If you mean what I think you mean, I believe that assertion is refuted here: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/tucker?entry=open_source_li... Eric Boutilier http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier |
| tadelste Mar 01, 2006 9:22 AM EDT |
eric_boutilier: Thank you for your post. This is an easy fix. Make OpenSolaris come under the GPL . Eric, you didn't say: "Linux is to UNIX as green is to color." Did you? Please go back to school and take Logic 101. ;-) Did Andreesen get his quote from you? What a disappointment. Try this. Windows is to UNIX as black is to night. I think that could work. |
| Libervis Mar 01, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
Milky, how can it be the other way around if CDDL was written years after GPL (v2) was? You make it sound as if FSF knew the future and that CDDL will be written and made their license deliberately incompatible with that future CDDL license. :) Besides, GPLv3 has certain clauses that may actually make it compatible with CDDL. So much for FSF being the source of incompatibility. |
| Libervis Mar 01, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
Eric_boutilier, That blog entry does seem to refute my original assumption, but I suppose I'll have to read the license carefully to be sure myself. The point that I tried to make echoed the point that tadelste tried to make. That general opinion seems to be rather prevalent in the FOSS community for what I can gather, and that's what I basically stated. So admittely, not being a lawyer nor someone who has done an extensive research on CDDL, I can't be an authority to trust when saying that. BUT, you can shed some light on it. I was looking for someone from Sun to ask for an interview about Sun's future intentions in regard to FOSS.. Thanks Daniel |
| eric_boutilier Mar 01, 2006 9:52 AM EDT |
tadelste
> ... Cooperation would mean the best OS ever! Absolutely, my sentiments exactly. And one way or another, It's starting to look like there's a good chance that OpenSolaris (and other key GPLv2-incompatible software like Eclipse, Apache, and Mozilla) and GPLv3 licensed software will be compatible. But then I fear we'll wind up with two camps: The FSF/GPLv3/OpenSolaris camp and the GPLv2 camp. If Linus stays in the latter we still won't be able to co-mingle OpenSolaris code and Linux kernel code. I think FSF, Apache.org, Mozilla.org, Eclipse, OSI, and others are looking at the GPL v2 as a license that -- while it stood as an original innovative idea many years ago -- is overdue to be refactored and improved as times have changed. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Linus to adopt GPLv3; but I think it is unreasonable to expect Sun and the OpenSolaris developer community to choose GPLv2. Eric |
| eric_boutilier Mar 01, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
Libervis wrote:
> I was looking for someone from Sun to ask for an interview about
> Sun's future intentions in regard to FOSS Well, being an OpenSolaris community development and infrastructure person, I'm more one who's concerned with Sun's present, rather than future, intentions in regard to FOSS. (Which of course you don't need an interview to learn all about; just head over to opensolaris.org and genunix.org for a -- IMO -- _wonderfully_ transparent and comprehensive experience.) The guy you want, without a doubt is Simon Phipps. Feel free to contact him via his blog/e-mail: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink webmink at sun.com I'll let him know too. Eric |
| eric_boutilier Mar 01, 2006 10:16 AM EDT |
tadelste wrote: > ... Please go back to school and take Logic 101... Did you intend to put a smiley on that statement? If not, it sounds like a deliberate taunt. Is it? Eric |
| Libervis Mar 01, 2006 10:23 AM EDT |
eric_boutilier: Thanks a lot for the pointer. Much appreciated. Our interviews are done in a possibly unique fashion, as questions are first being proposed by the community on public forums and then compiled and sent to an interviewee. It ought to be interesting! Thanks again Daniel |
| tadelste Mar 01, 2006 12:20 PM EDT |
eric_boutilier: Did you intend to put a smiley on that statement? If not, it sounds like a deliberate taunt. Is it? no, it needed a smiley. I suppose dry humor doesn't come across in these posts. |
| bdumm Mar 01, 2006 4:48 PM EDT |
tadelste: take it from me, it doesn't. lol |
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!