What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
46 Comments
- lyzz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13They are dual licensing it, just like a bunch of other open source companies. I applaud them for their efforts.
May the best kernel win. - djatlantic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Can we port ZFS to Linux with this dual licensing complication?
- CaptainMordecai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"How can you legally license an identical product under 2 different licenses? "
Easy, Sun owns the code, they can use whatever license they like. The license doesn't apply to them. - tony134340, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Are you behind the Nigerian emails? You're using all sorts of big words and don't seemingly know how to use them.
No, I'm kidding. I'm just jealous I don't have your vocabulary. - msikma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@cbergeron: you say you understand legal issues, but you don't seem to have a clue in this case. This is Sun's code, and they can do whatever they want with it. This includes multi-licensing the code under the CDDL and the GPL. Afterall, it's something that they made, so why shouldn't they have the right to do what they want with it? And it really doesn't "discriminate" anyone; you can choose the license you wish to follow. So if Sun's source is licensed under the CDDL and the GPL, you can simply choose to ignore the CDDL and comply with the GPL only if you don't like it.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5no. Sun would go with GPL v3
Linux is strictly GPLv2. a v2 project cannot use v3 code.
Try Nexenta, it's like Ubuntu, but with the Solaris kernel - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"How can you legally license an identical product under 2 different licenses?"
Dual-Licensing is nothing new. I believe MySQL does this? And quite a few other companies.
I would be interesting in hearing the licensing for patches etc... Maybe when you submit patches you agree that the copyright holder of the GPL code owns them or maybe patches aren't under copyright since they aren't actually stand alone, just modifications to the real code. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KAMiKAZOW:
Why use a slow unstable ZFS FUSE driver, when you can just use Solaris itself?
Solaris is even faster, if that's your bag ( http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2006_19.html )
and it runs 99% of the programs Linux does... - Tsuroerusu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ H3g3m0n
"I would be interesting in hearing the licensing for patches etc... Maybe when you submit patches you agree that the copyright holder of the GPL code owns them or maybe patches aren't under copyright since they aren't actually stand alone, just modifications to the real code."
Here ya go: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/sca_faq/ - Tsuroerusu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, let me just put this question of "Will ZFS show get into Linux?" to bed once and for all.
Linux is licensed under "GPLv2", which means ONLY GPLv2. The GNOME desktop, just as an example, is licensed under "GPLv2 or any later version", which could mean GPLv3 as well as GPLv65.
GPLv3 adds some additional restrictions with the intent to preserve more freedoms for the end-user, but since GPLv2 clearly says that you can't add additional restrictions, this makes the two licenses incompatible, which then means that you can't mix code licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv3. This makes it impossible to incorporate ZFS into the Linux kernel, however it is already being ported to FreeBSD and DragonFly-BSD, which are also excellent free (as in freedom) software operating systems.
And as has been stated already, nope, you can't fork the Linux kernel under GPLv3, because the copyright holders of the code has licensed their code under GPLv2 only, and since you don't own the code, then you can't relicense it. It's like asking if you, as the end-user, could license Microsoft Windows under the GPL. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@schestowitz Sun just has great faith in the superiority of their kernel and core operating system components over Linux. I agree that Solaris is superior in many ways over Linux, especially for advanced server applications. SunOS also has many esoteric but nifty features that could make it deal winners for certain applications. But I'm not sure how much ground they could hope to gain this late in the game. I think Sun is thinking that if they could win some installs by putting themselves on the same ground as Linux license wise, they might some how recover from the seemingly hopeless downward spiral they are in. I like Solaris very much, but I still think Sun is doomed in the end.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"under the GPL ( any version ) then we can expect native support for ZFS built into the Linux kernel shortly thereafter."
Not true.
Linux is v2 only. v2 says you can't add extra restrictions. v3 adds extra restrictions. therefore you can't use v3 code in a v2 project. Hence why most GPL programs say "or any later version".
unless everyone decides to relicense v3, it's not going to happen. Or you can just use a more free kernel like Solaris... since the api's are the same, you can switch them out & only need a recompile to get things working.
Look at Nexenta, they slapped SunOS in to Ubuntu - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You don't own that code, so you can't relicense it...
If you dragged up every kernel contributor and convinced them to put their code under v3, sure... but you can't just fork & change license - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Does Linux have a specific clause saying it can only be published under GPLv2?"
Yes, in a substantial chunk of it's code - cbergeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your vocabulary will expand as you get older.
It's kind of like learning Algebra. It may seem difficult now, but so did the multiplication tables back in 3rd grade. It gets easier as you get older (up to a point). - rincebrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@FunkyWitDaSysTm:
We know what your words mean. We strongly doubt you do.
You're being dugg down because you're stringing together words without a thought for the grammar associated with most English sentences and then complaining about how your vocabulary is so large nobody ever understands you waah waah waah. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not so sure that Sun's trying to push SPARC so much anymore... the ISA wars are over, and cheap crap won.
They seem to be focusing on getting people back on the platform & paying for support. Their SPARC offerings as of late, with the exception of the T1 series, have been pretty uninspiring.
Sun seems to be going back to it's roots, in as far as they now seem to want to sell the whole package... turnkey machines running their OS that they can support from the ground up.
Open source is popular (or more to the point, closed source was only a flare up through the 90's) again, and Sun's a support & packaging company ... Schwartz realizes it, and realizes it's what built SUNW... it was the lack of openness that nearly killed Sun in the late 90's - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"it's already licensed thru gpl2. couldn't part or all of it be ported to gpl3 with special considerations?"
It would be simply that easy, if ZFS actually was licensed under the GPLv2, but it isn't, it's licensed under the CDDL, which is not GPL compatible, which has been a point of controversy concerning Solaris in general, especially because of rumors that Sun based the CDDL off of Mozilla's license _because_ it is GPL incompatible and therefore any innovations ( like ZFS ) cannot be used in the Linux kernel ( a competitor to Solaris ). The current work around for this is to use FUSE based ZFS support, which since it runs in user space and is not linked directly to the kernel would not be considered a derived work, the only problem with this is that running a file system in user space is extremely inefficient and would make accessing ZFS slower than EXT3 whereas ZFS on Solaris is often faster than ReiserFS ( and more stable ). But to answer djatlantic's question, yes, if Sun releases OpenSolaris ( which includes ZFS ) under the GPL ( any version ) then we can expect native support for ZFS built into the Linux kernel shortly thereafter.
Aren't Open Source politics fun ;) - mournsanity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, thanks for the info!
- mournsanity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If GNU/Solaris threatens to supplant GNU/Linux because of the latter's failure to adopt GPLv3, can't Linux be forked and the new fork be licensed under v3? Or am I missing something here (besides the obvious fact that the kernel would need completely new maintainers)?
- KAMiKAZOW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ZFS runs on Linux thanks to FUSE.
If you are asking, if ZFS can be integrated into the kernel, then the answer is no. Linus once changed Linux's license to GPLv2 only (removing the possibility of "and any later version). - mournsanity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So you need the permission of the original authors to relicense GPLv2 code? The GPL says this:
---------------------
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
--------------------
Does Linux have a specific clause saying it can only be published under GPLv2? - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cbergeron
There are plenty of reasons it won't work, but not the ones you are thinking of.
For example, Sun allows free redistribution of Java runtimes for PC Linux distros, but not embedded applications. Doh! So no Sun Java in an open, hackable phone. Those will continue to use GNU Classpath, unless IBM gets smart and frees J9. - sn0w, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1H3g3m0n wrote: "Anyone else think its kind of insane to release an updated license that is not compatible with the same older licenses?, backwards compatibility is a fairly big feature of the freesoftware world in a lot of products, and a freesoftware licenses that stop you using it with other freesoftware? I could understand preventing GPLv3 from being downgraded to GPLv2 to stop people doing it as a loophole."
This is a BIG misconception GPL v2 is of course compatible with GPL v3. It is however true that we won't be seeing GPL v3 code in Linux 'cause Torvalds, among others, want to have the kernel under one license only. But if you wanted to there's nobody stopping you from forking Linux and distributing a kernel with both v2 _and_ v3 code. What you cannot do is changing the licensing terms of the Linux code (it is GPL v2 _only_), so the parts that are under GPL v2 must continue to be so, unless you get permission from the copyright holders to distribute their code under another license. - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4digg this down
- sn0w, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Chandon is correct GPL v3 is not compatible with v2. I was wrong. That being said, I don't find this incompatibility to be a big problem.
- Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sn0w:
That's not true. GPLv2 is not compatible with *any* other license that adds additional restrictions to modification or distribution. That's why the question of GPL compatibility comes up a lot - the GPL is not compatible with much else at all. Normally, the license of GPL licensed software *is* compatible with any later version of the GPL, because the standard license terms are "the current version of the GPL or any later version". In the case of Linux, the terms don't include "any later version", so Linux (the kernel) is not compatible with GPLv3. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sun is using the GPL v3 so that ZFS et al aren't incorporated into Linux. They know that Linux will never be GPL v3 so they can safely release it under that license. Remember, sun cares about hardware sales only, so if they helped linux too much then they would diminish their competitive advantage. They want people to try solaris on x86 then move to sparc which Solaris is designed for from the beginning, plus Sun only cares about hardware sales from Sparc and their new x86-64 lines. They aren't a charity organization.
I won't even touch on the fanboys I have had the displeasure of reading here, it's quite shocking as someone who keeps an open mind to operating systems. I use Linux but I've also used Solaris, they're all great OS'es with their postives/negatives. Personally I think DTrace could be very useful but Linux kernel maintainers, as wise as they are, have already poo poo'ed DTrace in Linux. This actually benefits Sun ironically.
If there's one thing we Linux'ers can use less of it's arrogance. - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BrainInAjar: ROFL
The funny thing is that Linux and Solaris (and *BSD) are really basically the same: Fully functional modern free software UNIX-like operating systems. They even run on the same modern platforms (Solaris not so much on Power). From a user/programmer perspective, which one you're running on really doesn't matter (unless you care about a specific feature, and then you can pick one based on that). - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4hey, i can take a pointed joke. i made a point of using as specific terminology as possible to get a specific type of answer. no attempt at superiority or any crap like that intended. i just don't fully understand what his could mean yet am incredibly interested. i imagine that a lot of people would benefit from a knowledgeable person explaining this. i'm just trying to provide an opportunity for a knowledgable person to do so without there being an argument or some silly comment-board politics.
in short, i asked a very specific question to try to get a specific answer. sorry if i came across as pretentious.
btw, if you don't think i'm using these word correctly... maybe you're right, maybe i'm just using them in weird ways no one ever has before. - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In the medium to long term, the Linux kernel itself isn't that big a deal. The world now has three completely separate full free software UNIX-like operating systems: GNU/Linux, Solaris, and BSD. Currently, the popular GNU/Linux distributions are somewhat more convenient to run on consumer-grade hardware than Solaris or any of the BSDs due to driver availability, but that's only a big deal if you want your webcam or scanner to work *right now* - other than that they're all pretty similar.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Would it be legal to repackage the Linux kernel as GPLv3 with ZFS for distro use and just keep it in sync with the real GPLv2 kernel?
Am I correct in understanding that the GPLv2 license just has to allow the core free software principles or does derived works specifically have to be under the same GPLv2? I remember reading a thing on the Open Gaming License, the Dungeons and Dragons d20 system that was released under a OpenSource style license by Wizards of the Coast (your now allowed to use the d20 or AD&D trademarks unless you agree to include character generation info and print that it need the Players handbook/DM Guide) , the license had a list of compatible licenses that included the GPL as it allowed for the core principles that the OGL had, so you can in theory release d20 based games under the GPL (you just can't called them d20 or use any AD&D trademarks or advertise compatibility with them).
I suppose the DRM clause in GPLv3 might conflict with the right to use software for whatever reason in GPLv2
Personally I think these licenses are doing the very things they where designed to prevent, restricting the use of software.
Anyone else think its kind of insane to release an updated license that is not compatible with the same older licenses?, backwards compatibility is a fairly big feature of the freesoftware world in a lot of products, and a freesoftware licenses that stop you using it with other freesoftware? I could understand preventing GPLv3 from being downgraded to GPLv2 to stop people doing it as a loophole.
IANAL
EDIT: Just saw the above post which answers some of that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The one thing that Solaris always did very nicely was scalable vector icons. All the other OS's are just now starting to build in infrastructure for this. John Dvorak championed svi back in the late seventies with an open standard called Dex. While the hardware they developed on was crude, it was later ported to more powerful Sparc systems.
- FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5ok, for me and those others who don't understand the implications of this type of move, exactly what (abstractly and contextually) would be the benefits/drawbacks of dual-licensing? how does it work in general, and how would it work in his case? would he licensing stipulations therefore be contextual or universal or both? what commonalities/differences would call for either or both?
i'm just trying to better understand what this _could_ mean so that i can arrive at the best and most objective understanding of this action. this is not only for me but for everyone else who doesn't necessarily know/fully understand what this could mean (hopefully explained by those who better understand sun, solaris, gpl, gpl 3, and CDDL than i do). - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Huh? That's a UI toolkit / desktop environment issue, and Solaris has always used the standard UNIX desktop environment - first CDE and now Gnome. As for vector icons, they've worked fine on Gnome and KDE (and Mac OS X for that matter) for a while AFAIK.
- caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh, Sun "gets it". But this is just an anonymous rumor. If it is confirmed I will be pleased to accept their license and build my own, however, I can not possibly expect Sun to be so kind again and again. First OpenOffice went GPL, now Java seems to be rolling out, OpenSolaris would make dreams come true.
I'm still concerned about the consequences of SCO v. IBM for the whole industry. FUD sucks. - Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dual licensing is really simple: If an action is allowed under either license, the licensee is allowed to do it. For software copyright licenses like the GPL and the Sun CDDL, the recipient of the license only needs one license but has been separately offered two - they can accept either or both. Once they accept a license, they get to do all the things that license allows.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2this is most troubling- but i doubt that linsucks will really challenge Solaris, technically don't get fooled in- its not some sort of technological wonder like its fanboys would have you believe
i think the Solaris kernel will compete very well-
and just when we thought that old hackish PC operating systems were finally dying in a corner, Linux comes out to challenge us
as a c++ coder (i mostly write drivers) i would not code under the current license (i love the CDDL too much) and feel that the GPL will block many legitimate uses of UNIX code like crypto in hospitals
oh btw i really don't like GPL license and would never work under one
but if some idiot in portland were challenging us and the Solaris Kernel were losing- then and only then would i think it necessary to change to the GPL3
Solaris has seen many threats- Linux will be extinguished just like the others - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3well, and i could be wrong, but wouldn't it depend on the context? it's already licensed thru gpl2. couldn't part or all of it be ported to gpl3 with special considerations? and with a fundamental ability to dual-license, couldn't more... inventive licensing "arrangements" be agreed upon should the specific need arise?
just asking.
btw, if he answer is "duh", just digg me down. - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@tony
btw, don't be jealous over my vocabulary. knowing lots of words let to me being the subject of intense ridicule throughout high school. and now? no one ever knows what i'm talking about. fat load of good that did.
btw, why are my comments being dugg down? - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I agree. They don't quite get it because they want to sustain the status quo as a large profit-making company. Making money is no sin and I just hope that:
1. People will not be foolish enough to abandon GNU/Linux or Windows workshops choose Sun over Linux thinking that there's licenxe parity.
2. Sun will not deliberately cripple the free offer (e.g. by making it out of date, hard to set up, and even incomplete). - cbergeron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1There's no way this will work.
How can you legally license an identical product under 2 different licenses? Things become discriminatory when you cross boundary lines like this based on your "intended audience".
I don't see this succeeding, but it's an interesting move none-the-less.
(before burying my comment, please understand that I would like for it to work out, but my wife is an attorney, so I understand some legalese) - gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This seems to me a bit like Sun smelling the slowly rotting corpse of its proprietary OS and trying to figure out how to preserve it a bit longer. At one point Sun truly dominated the big iron world, but it's losing ground there as well. I swore off Slowlaris years ago when my rack of cheapo Netras, running mission critical business applications, got massively pwned by some script kiddie due to "known issues" in Slowlaris that they were dragging their tails to update. Sun's response? "You should have removed them from the network until our updates were released". LOL
I'm not sure how the dual licensing will work out, especially if they are not compatible licenses (?) or am I reading things wrong here? - JOOH8R, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0this is most troubling- but i doubt that slowaris will really challenge Linux, technically don't get fooled in- its not some sort of technological wonder like its marketing department would have you believe
i think the linux kernel will compete very well-
and just when we thought that UNIX was finally dying in a corner, Solaris comes out to challenge us
as a c++ coder (i mostly write drivers) i would not code under the current license (i love the GPL2 too much) and feel that the GPL3 will block many legitimate uses of Linux code like crypto in hospitals
oh btw i really don't like BSD license and would never work under one
but if SUN were challenging us and the Linux Kernel were losing- then and only then would i think it necessary to change to the GPL3
linux has seen many threats- solaris will be extinguished just like the others
there is one thing i like about solaris, it is managed by mercurial- i know this has nothing to do with anything but i really like mercurial over GIT - downlo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Damn Sun, they still don't get it.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#CDDL - zuluhed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1goats are touching your crumpets
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is