OpenSolaris - Hot or not?

[valan]

Why shouldn't Sun want to reap the benefits from it? This is millions, possibly billions, of their dollars, and more than 20 years of their hard work, why wouldn't they want something back for that? They are looking to make Solaris into something better. Anyone who wants to will be able to get the code and help them out. People who use Solaris all the time will surely like to help em out, this is the people they are mostly targeting by open sourcing it, and this is exactly how it will work out. I see nothing wrong with that. Linux is open source, and anyone who wants can help out with it. I can't be bothered to read and understand the license right now, but I would imagine that someone could write some software with the CDDL, and use code from Solaris. Substitute GPL and Linux and you have the same thing.

[techieMoe]

Why shouldn't Sun want to reap the benefits from it? This is millions, possibly billions, of their dollars, and more than 20 years of their hard work, why wouldn't they want something back for that?

No one said they shouldn't. I simply wanted to point out that this does not benefit the Linux/GPL community at all. If you would like to produce Solaris software you're more than welcome to. I, personally, will stay as far away from it as possible.

Linux is open source, and anyone who wants can help out with it. I can't be bothered to read and understand the license right now, but I would imagine that someone could write some software with the CDDL, and use code from Solaris. Substitute GPL and Linux and you have the same thing.

No, you do not. The GPL can be used for any OS under any circumstance provided the code remains open to the community. The CDDL dictates that software made under it is to be used specifically for one OS (Solaris), therefore it will not have the same open community involvement as Linux, nor will it ever be as free since the OS itself is still owned by one company. The Linux kernel is free software not owned by any one person, including Linus himself. There is *quite a bit* of difference between Linux and the GPL and Solaris and the CDDL.

[valan]

Hmm, you got a point there. I'm still gonna give this Solaris thing a try, though

[techieMoe]

Hmm, you got a point there. I'm still gonna give this Solaris thing a try, though

Oh certainly. I'm too much of an OS junkie not to at least download it and give it a go.

[Santa's little helper]

The CDDL dictates that software made under it is to be used specifically for one OS (Solaris)...

Where does it say that ?

[techieMoe]

The CDDL dictates that software made under it is to be used specifically for one OS (Solaris)...

Where does it say that ?

The CDDL is incompatible with other popular open-source licenses such as the GPL. Because of this incompatibility, CDDL-licensed software can only be used with other CDDL-licensed software. As of right now the only CDDL-licensed operating system is OpenSolaris. Therefore, the CDDL says any software written under it must be used with OpenSolaris only.

This isn't to say that some aspiring programmer might not make a new OS based on the CDDL, but there would be no real benefit. They couldn't use GPL software to put it together because the GPL conflicts with the CDDL, so they'd have to write it from scratch, and once they released it the only people that could benefit directly from their code would be other CDDL-licensed project, most of which for the above reasons would be run on Solaris.

I know you're trying to point out that it doesn't explicitly say "you MUST use this software on Solaris", but my point is that it's implying it quite strongly.

[Santa's little helper]

And most software which gets released under GPL runs on top of Linux.So I don't see how that makes CDDL bad but GPL good.

But I have to say here that for me what really counts is the ideology ie that software should be free , as in free to
study its source code and free to modify.How one puts this
ideology into legal terms is a rather technical matter.So I'm glad that GPL exists but I'm not willing to consider it
as some sort of standard against which any other license
must be judged.On the contrary doing that would be against the freedom it is supposed to support.
So for me the crucial question for every new license is not
if it works in harmony with GPL but does it conform
with the free software ideology ?As long as it does then it's perfectly ok with me for everyone to choose the
exact wording which they feel suits best the legal context they find themselves in and their financial interests.
Having said that it's obviously best if there is only one
open source license intead of many but I don't see it as
morally bad if someone adopts a different open source license.

[techieMoe]

And most software which gets released under GPL runs on top of Linux.So I don't see how that makes CDDL bad but GPL good.
...

Having said that it's obviously best if there is only one
open source license intead of many but I don't see it as
morally bad if someone adopts a different open source license.

I disagree. Just because most GPL runs on top of Linux doesn't mean it can't be run on top of Windows, FreeBSD, or OS X. CDDL software can too. This is not a question of what can be run, but what can be *developed*.

I don't see it as a "bad" or "immoral" thing to use the CDDL, I just personally see it as useless, since there are tons of other OSS licenses out there that fit everyone else's needs, unless of course you're Sun.

[Santa's little helper]

Depends what you mean by useless.If you mean it would
have been just as much use to anyone under one of the other licenses that may be the case.But it's still a lot more use under CDDL than if it hadn't been released at all.

[techieMoe]

If you mean it would
have been just as much use to anyone under one of the other licenses that may be the case.

By "useless" I mean that anything licensed under the CDDL cannot be reused verbatim by any license that doesn't support it (i.e. the GPL and any other license that forbids adding further restrictions on its use). So yes, that's exactly what I mean. If a developer wants to make something so that it will be useful and useable to the broadest audience possible, they should stay away from the CDDL, in my opinion.

But it's still a lot more use under CDDL than if it hadn't been released at all.

Well, technically nothing *has* been released yet as far as I know, so I guess that remains to be seen.