Comments on: Sun likes what it sees in the new GPL

Patent protections are just part of why version 3 of the license might be good for open-sourcing Java and Solaris, CEO says.

[Marcus Westrup]

Separate GPL's could be good

There are enough differences between Unix and Linux that parallel development makes sense. It will mean more work (the licencing difference will reduce code sharing) by programmers, but in the long run that is healthier. Each OS will have it?s own strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited by System Architects for whatever project is at hand.
As long as Solaris is open-sourced in a reasonable manner, I think it will be the right way to go.

[tpenta]

Statement from the OpenSolaris CAB/OGB

In the ee eeeintrstofcompltnss, if you are going to go cherry picking comments from the discussions, you really should have included the position statement from the OpenSolaris CAB/OGB.

Taken from http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=23699&tstart=0

CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6

Topic: Should OpenSolaris be dual licensed via CDDL and GPLv3

Published by: OpenSolaris CAB/OGB current members:
Casper Dik, Al Hopper, Roy Fielding, Simon Phipps, Rich Teer

Background: Over the past week or so a heated and passionate debate
has taken place on the opensolaris-discuss mailing list [1] relating
to the possibility of dual-licensing OpenSolaris, and in particular
with GPLv3 as the 2nd license, in addition to CDDL, under which
OpenSolaris is currently licensed. The CAB/OGB (henceforth referred
to as simply the OGB) has observed this discussion carefully and
individual OGB members have been active participants.

Now that this discussion is winding down, the OGB, as the elected
representatives of the OpenSolaris project, will render an OGB
statement of position and provide guidance to the community to bring
closure to this discussion and to determine the communities near term
future licensing direction.

Discussion summaries (the pros and the cons):

The Pro dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
will:

- increase developer mindshare

- attract active developers currently working on other FOSS projects

- promote code exchange across FOSS boundries

- end the constant anti-CDDL campaign waged by GPL* license
proponents


The Anti dual licensing community members assert that dual licensing
will:

- increase licensing complexity and futher complicate this already
legally complex licensing landscape

- lead to endless continued debates related to various "what if" code
inclusion/exclusion scenarios

- allow a one-way code fork by acquiring the OpenSolaris body of
code, manipulating, removing or modifying the (eventual, but
currently unknown) GPLv3 license terms in a way that prevents or
impedes the changes being propagated back to OpenSolaris.

- *not* entice or attract GPL* proponent FOSS developers, who want to
ensure that other Operating Systems (they actively work on) flourish,
to OpenSolaris.

---------------

The OGB, having heard arguments from both sides, concludes:

o Discussing GPLv3 is pre-mature as the license does not exist at
this time.

o That there is little, if any, benefit to dual-licensing OpenSolaris
with CDDL and the yet to be approved/upcoming GPLv3 license - aside
from possible short term good press for the project.

o There are significant downsides to dual licensing, including, but
not limited to, license complexity, confusion and the possibility of
long term bad press from any exception language that such a license
would inevitably require.

o GPL* licensing OpenSolaris would be yielding to a small vocal
minority of FOSS developers who use the lack of GPL licensing, purely
as a means of fostering FUD towards OpenSolaris and who will, in all
likelyhood, find some other workable mechanism to continue to foster
FUD towards the project.

o There are higher priority action items to be completed in order to
build developer mindshare and that this opinion is held by a large
number of current contributors and acts as a barrier to other
potential contributors.

-------------

The OGB having carefully weighed the available options concludes and
decrees that:

o any option related to GPLv3 dual licensing be re-assessed no sooner
than 6 months after the GPLv3 has been published and approved.

o Further discussions related to any form of dual licensing be
postponed until after the GPLv3 has been published and approved and
should take place on the OGB discussion forum only.

o Further discussion on GPL* is merely a diversion and distraction
that should be discouraged, so as to allow the community to
concentrate on the higher priority action items - especially those
that will improve developer mindshare.

-------------------

[1] begin here - it will take approximately 5 hours to read all the
related threads:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-Janu...

MOTION To adopt the CAB/OGB Position Paper # 20070207 version 0.6 by
Al Hopper seconded by Rich Teer. Motion carried unanimously (In
favor: Rich Teer, Casper Dik, Row Fielding, Al Hopper. Absent Simon
Phipps).

[totosplatz]

This could spur the eventual replacement of Linux

GPL v3 will emerge over the next few years as being almost as prescient as the original GPL. First, GPL v3 will make possible DRM systems in which the IP owner can foot the bill for the IP "protection" that DRM supposedly delivers, and in which free systems can participate freely. Second, GPL v3 will deal with software patents in an explicit manner.

Eventually, GPL v3 will be a must-have for every large corporation wishing to participate in the creation of free software.

At that point, the serious players will want to switch to a pure GPL v3 regime, and Solaris will be the path they will take, if Sun decides to release Solaris under GPL v3. When they do, Linux will revert to "hobbyist" status. There are personal reasons behind the resistance to GPL v3 in the Linux camp, so don't expect that to ever change.

[pinniped]

device drivers...

Solaris is pretty much in the same state as BSD when it comes to device drivers (actually probably worse). It will be years before enthusiasts port and test numerous drivers. Although much can be copied from Linux (just as Linux copied so much from BSD early on), the two systems just handle devices in such different ways that the job will never be simple. At least the people currently using various versions of Solaris will now have more freedom. This may be particularly important for people with very costly research equipment which run with Solaris but are getting a bit old for 'support'. Now if the instrument makers would only give the researchers their proprietary code for controlling those machines... But aside from the driver issue, Solaris has been a favorite for many computer folks for many years now. A friend of mine is testing OpenSolaris in his business and he's quite happy with it. He's also got Linux running for some jobs but he prefers Solaris.