Sun said it will take an “aggressive” approach to opening up the source code of its core operating system. It just isn’t saying when. The Santa Clara, Calif.-based network computer maker fended off questions from reporters and analysts Tuesday during a briefing centered on the major developments for Solaris 10. The enterprise platform is scheduled for a September 2004 launch date to coincide with the shipment of Sun’s next generation Java Enterprise System. Update: More here.
Sun ‘Aggressive’ on Open Source Solaris
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
How many times will Sun lie about this. Solaris is based on Sys V which is under a contract with restrictions. Sun cannot open source it. Maybe something like MS shared source stuff but not open source.
I would think that Sun Microsystems knows quite a bit about what they can and can’t do with their source code, more than some anonymous poster on OSNEWS.
“I would think that Sun Microsystems knows quite a bit about what they can and can’t do with their source code, more than some anonymous poster on OSNEWS.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/09/sco_nogpl_solaris/
hmm. sounds bad?
how about three times of shutting down and restarting solaris on x86
how about confusing messages that it will/will not open source java
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2000/1024javasource.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0604sunnode.html
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-03-1999/jw-03-java2.html
So I’ll quote it for you, since you have not comprehended the appropriate part:
Earlier this month, top executives confirmed Sun’s long-rumored intentions to release parts of Solaris to the open source community similar to the way that Linux, Apache and other open source projects are available.
I hope that helps you to understand why they can release it as open source, since IT excludes some parts which may have licensing conflicts, not the whole thing. Again, Sun, being comprised of paid professionals, would know much more about this than some average anonymous poster.
I wish they’d stop announcing how much they support Open Source for all of their software, and just DO IT! Take a dump or get off the pot.
“So I’ll quote it for you, since you have not comprehended the appropriate part:
Earlier this month, top executives confirmed Sun’s long-rumored intentions to release parts of Solaris to the open source community similar to the way that Linux, Apache and other open source projects are available. ”
you know what SCO is telling ?. better listen carefully. it says anything derived out of sys v or based on it cannot be open sourced. so go read the contracts in groklaw. Sun has been repeatedly giving out confusing messages and lies like redhat is proprietary, that java is open source and what not. so i am not going to trust what they say. that doesnt mean that they dont know the truth.
You have failed to comprehend “parts”:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parts
There is no point in continuing this discussion if you cannot understand such a simple English word.
And Java is “open source,” I have th source on my computer right now. Perhaps you meant GPL, or “Open Source.”
“You have failed to comprehend “parts”:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parts
There is no point in continuing this discussion if you cannot understand such a simple English word.”
you need to under derived. SCO says anything developed over sys v is derived. so unless sun is willing to prove otherwise there is no way. legality is more complicated that english and this is about contracts not english.
“And Java is “open source,” I have th source on my computer right now. Perhaps you meant GPL, or “Open Source.””
arent you contradicting yourself here. you say java is open source and then say perhaps i meant open source.
here is a simple clue. just because source is available doesnt make it open source. there are a hell lot of proprietary products where source is available under a EULA or contract. Even MS has shared source and makes available windows source code to chinese people. Java IS NOT open source. Neither is solaris. i dont mean just gpl. bsd,mit,lgpl,perl artistic, apache license, python et all are all open source.
Another PR release from Sun…
You have never learned the difference because your keyboard’s shift key appears to be broken.
I find Sun’s stance very interesting. They’ve tested these waters before and have looked for reaction from the community. If we go beyond the Java debacle, Solaris is a great OS with a very mature and good futures. Coming from a corporation where our enterprise infrastructure is based on Solaris, I find this amusing. (We’re a multi-billion dollar pharma company)
If you’re really interested in following this discussion, then check out the threads on comp.unix.solaris (http://tinyurl.com/2z7mm).
However, personally I like the way Solaris 10 is coming along. As a long time product manager and sysadmin, I would not want to see this happen.
My 2 cents.
-Bruno Delbono
This guy only understands the literal meaning of English words, but doesn’t have a faintest sight of common sense. I suspect it’s just a robot equipped with the so-called AI to look up the meanings of words in a dictionary.
Why would they want to open source Solaris or any part of it. Just to have some college kid plagarise the work and call it innovative.
Give it away for free but don’t open source it!
dude just leave it alone.
“Let me assure you, on this stuff, I don’t speak without facts.” – Johnathon Schwartz
I think Sun mirosystems knows more about the contracts they have signed with SCO, Novell, AT&T, etc. than you. Please they aren’t all public.
So leave it alone, stop trolling.
Um. No. Sun microsystems is going to release an open source flavor of Solaris that will be 100% open source. They will not open source all of it. ….Following a model that Apple has… Darwin & Mac OS….. I suppose they will release ‘part’ as a stripped down version.
oh nevermind me, i guess im just an idiot, right?
No, it depends on the license Sun has. On those are private. If anyone knows details, please provide them.
If Sun is gonna open parts of Solaris then that’s not the whole OS hence Solaris isn’t open source i agree on that. If parts of an OS mean the OS is open-source then IRIX and OS/2 are open source because of XFS and JFS.
“And Java is “open source,” I have th source on my computer right now. Perhaps you meant GPL, or “Open Source.””
Therefore, Windows and OpenVMS are open source as well. Perhaps it is OSI open source what is meant; an accurate definition imo.
I’m almost certain you could find Novell and IBM employees saying mixed things or saying things they ‘think’. Who cares if some employee says something, we need to hear what the execs and official press releases say.
Groklaw? That site is completely biased. First of all they don’t have all of sun’s contracts involving their unix assets. Now, please provide links to the ‘contracts’ on the site. Second of all, that site does not like sun simply because they bought a unix license from SCO recently. They also hate Sun because they don’t like Red Hat.
Although Red Hat Enterprise really is overpriced and has clear non-free restrictions. Simply because it has the name “Linux” It must be protected from all bad comments.. it seems. I like Fedora and whitebox though.
Later.
depends on your definiton of Open source, like a FSF or OSI versuses your independent definition. I always say,, “How Open” ? which really makes the entire definition cloudy. The term is open to interpretation.
But sun isn’t going to open source just parts of it, they will churn out an open source OS.
Take a look at this if you believe SCO’s ridiculous claims. It appears that any System V licensee can do whatever they want with their own code as long as it doesn’t contain System V code.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200406050522063…
And:
1. IBM’s site letter from AT&T says: “Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you.”
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
2. The AT&T $echo newsletter clarified what AT&T’s intent was in all their previous Unix licensee contracts:
“Language changes will be made to clarify ownership of modifications or derivative works prepared by a licensee.”
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/04_1985_echo.pdf
“Section 2.01 – The last sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed — only the portion of the software developed by AT&T.”
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/08_1985_echo.pdf
The wording was changed in later contracts:
“AT&T-IS claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.”
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040318012131886
3. AT&T and USL employees testified that AT&T never intended to make ownership claims over their code.
“The SOFT-00089 license agreement was intended to “clarify” the prior intent of the parties. Wilson Depo., at 139:10- 140:1. AT&T’s Director of Licensing, Otis Wilson, testified that the language used prior to that contained in the SOFT-00089 license agreement was “somewhat confusing to some people in that they thought we were trying to assert ownership to anything they created, even though it contained nothing of ours. So this is to clarify that what’s yours is yours and what’s ours is ours”(emphasis added). Wilson Depo., at 75:24-76:4. USL’s Mitzi Bond admitted that she understood 2.01(b)ii) meant that “enhancements and modifications made by the licensee were to be made available to anyone so long as they did not include any portion of the software products licensed under the agreement” emphasis added). Bond Depo., at 137:19-138:19. However, Ms. Bond also has espoused a mental “contamination” theory by which any university student exposed to AT&T code would be beholden to AT&T for any software product he/she might subsequently develop. Bond Depo,at 220:2-13, 237:24- 238:8.”
http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/SCOvsIBMContract
And:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Could_Sun_hold_…
“I came across some old notes in which Jonathan Schwartz, Sun’s executive vice president for software, discussed the “extremely expansive” rights to Unix that the company acquired 10 years earlier, in 1994.”
“Beyond Schwartz’s characterization (offered in a context outside of SCO’s lawsuits) of the 10-year-old transaction as a “buyout of Unix” that involved “expansive rights,” Sun officials haven’t elaborated.”
Care to try to refute any of these, Mr Anonymous from 61.95.184.—?
“I came across some old notes in which Jonathan Schwartz, Sun’s executive vice president for software, discussed the “extremely expansive” rights to Unix that the company acquired 10 years earlier, in 1994.”
“Beyond Schwartz’s characterization (offered in a context outside of SCO’s lawsuits) of the 10-year-old transaction as a “buyout of Unix” that involved “expansive rights,” Sun officials haven’t elaborated.”
Care to try to refute any of these,”
—————————
the ibm contracts are not the sco contracts. so majority of links do not apply here
if sun does try to open source solaris sco will litigate and the contract should be interpreted on court to prove that sun can indeed do what it does
“”Beyond Schwartz’s characterization (offered in a context outside of SCO’s lawsuits) of the 10-year-old transaction as a “buyout of Unix” that involved “expansive rights,” Sun officials haven’t elaborated.” ”
your own “proof” is very vague. unless we see the contracts and exact terminology there is no way SUN is going to keep telling these stuff.
“””Beyond Schwartz’s characterization (offered in a context outside of SCO’s lawsuits) of the 10-year-old transaction as a “buyout of Unix” that involved “expansive rights,” Sun officials haven’t elaborated.” ”
”
why hasnt SUN refuted sco’s claims clearly. why not file a slander of title against sco if SUN does indeed have rights. why does it keep its mouth shut. why not atleast give a PR saying that what sco says is wrong. sco is claiming that SUN does not have the right and SUN refuses to “eloborate”. why?
“”Let me assure you, on this stuff, I don’t speak without facts.” – Johnathon Schwartz ”
why are you just quoting this guy and not sco
here is counter link
“http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/09/sco_nogpl_solaris/“
how about that?. i could also claim sco does know the contract too. right?
”
Although Red Hat Enterprise really is overpriced and has clear non-free restrictions”
hello?
the entire source is available under their respective open source licenses.
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/
if you dont want the support you can get the entire software free of cost. redhat is only selling SUPPORT. how the hell is that non free?
want the software go download it from
coas.org
whiteboxlinux.org
taolinux.org
which are three INDEPENDANT binary rebuilds of redhat enterprise. how is that for non free? huh.
just because you have some stock with SUN by your own admission dont claim the same crap that SUN does
“depends on your definiton of Open source, like a FSF or OSI versuses your independent definition. I always say,, “How Open” ? which really makes the entire definition cloudy. The term is open to interpretation. ”
the OSI brought about that term and its clearly defined. there is no other independant definiton and when people say open source they mean open source as defined by OSI. lets be clear about that
what licenses qualify is also listed. so no confusion about that.
clearly java is not open source. stop claiming that.
We spent virtually no time yesterday discussing open source (and we didn’t even bring it up, the press did). It’s unfortunate that this meeting is being represented as one about open source — which it very much was not. In case you’re interested, I discuss what actually went down here: http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
why are you so fixed on hating sun? SCO’s response came from an SCO employee. A sun employee that was confused who had never seen the contracts could easily do this.
Plus, am I right that you publicaly critize SCO and call them crap and what not? You hate SCO don’t you. Why do you all of a sudden think SCO is right for once, oh wait its because its against sun.
just leave it alone man
“the OSI brought about that term and its clearly defined. there is no other independant definiton”
True. People from OSI (ie. Raymond — and others) coined this term first. Before that, it at least wasn’t widely used.
Here’s a paper from a former Sun employee who named it “Sourceware”. He worked at Sun at the time he wrote this. It argues for sharing of source between Sun and Novell in order to compete with Microsoft. (We now who won and lost that battle.) Date: 1993.
http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html
“when people say open source they mean open source as defined by OSI.”
I’d say -as a generalisation- most people in the field (developers) do this indeed. If one (ie Schwartz) has a different meanig which in practice is NOT the same as the popular meaning of it, it would be nice if he eleborated on it. Sun hasn’t made particular clear, non-contradicting announcements the past few months, has it?
When on the Internet at a discussion forum one calls you a troll, while with troll one means you’re a nice looking crature with gentile eyes, you do not know one means with the latter because there’s a general consensus of the meaning of the word. Your monitor isn’t a computer either…
“And I’m still holding out some hope that we’ll see an article on the actual technical content that we presented, and not the open sourcing of Solaris that we refused to talk about… ”
You are so right! Politics are a heated subject though. I can’t wait for the Solaris 10 Release
Items 2 and 3 apply to all System V licencees. They show AT&T intentions in their contracts.
I am trying to show that SCO’s claims against IBM are clearly false, which suggests their comments about Sun are also false.
Who are we expected to believe, SCO executives, who have a reputation for lying in public, or Sun?
Neither you or I are qualified to interpret the contracts, even if we saw Sun’s, assuming they even have a contract. They may have clean ownership of their own copy of System V code, as suggested by the word “buyout.”
You call my proof vague, yet you state “Sun cannot open source it” with zero evidence.
SCO…SCO… SCO…
What are you people going to do when they loose every legal case they have? (they have lost 50% already).
I totally agree with you.
Prior to the popularity of open source software I dubbed open source software as software in which i had access to the source.
About Red Hat… Why is is that I am unable to copy red hat enterprise cd’s? I can’t redistribute it. Even on the sites you listed, like whitebox, it clearly states that its because of the red hat copyrights and trademarks do not allow it. Under the GPL you are required to show the source. So, your arguement is baseless and pointless. I was talking about the actual “Red Hat Enterprise Linux” Not the same thing with the copyrights stripped.
Stock? I own the same amount of Novell actually. I sold my Red Hat stock, which I had more of
That’s all I’m going to reply to regarding your numerous posts.
An open sourced Solaris means that open sourced Java is far less likely. Bear with me a moment.
Sun’s opening up of Solaris means that they recognize that their future is not in operating system revenue. And since open Solaris means a better x86 version, it’s not in chips either.
So where are they going to make money? Middleware.
Ya know this Java Desktop thing that everyone says has nothing to do with Java? They’re wrong. The whole point is that it’s pre-configured to backend into the Java Enterprise System stack, which is substantially Java-based.
So if Sun sees it’s future in middleware, and the linchpin of middleware is Java, I would suggest that an open source Java is now far, far less likely.
“I totally agree with you.”
???
“About Red Hat… Why is is that I am unable to copy red hat enterprise cd’s? I can’t redistribute it. Even on the sites you listed, like whitebox, it clearly states that its because of the red hat copyrights and trademarks do not allow it.”
Trademark on the name, copyright on the artwork. That’s it. For the rest, ALL source if FLOSS. Actually, Red Hat doesn’t provide some source && binaries of patented technologies like MP3 and NTFS. As you *might* be aware, artwork is not sourcecode. Now ask yourself, does Sun like it when some other company claims it is selling JDS for this cool price using this awesome Java technology? Or if the beautiful Sun were used?
In the past Sun did not like it when people used Java in their domain name:
http://www.bitmover.com/lm/javaletter.html
And a parody:
http://www.bitmover.com/lm/javaresp.html
Therefore, if you remove the trademark and artwork [which is exactly what Whitebox did] you’re free to distribute the whole thing. You’re also free to distribute any of the RPM’s you have, excluding those which contain trademarked or copyrighted artwork. You’re also free to do this work yourself but ask yourself why redo what others are doing? This is addressed all over this fine place called the Internet, so i assume you as 64 bit server admin were unable to read some fine manual.
Hey and mr Sun zealot, go compare that with the JDS license. Talking about freedom *grin*. That’s one of the things Groklaw grokked, and yet another reason why some over there don’t like Sun. You really don’t have to look far to understand some reasons why Sun isn’t liked by some in the FLOSS communities. You don’t even have to agree; just observe and understand one’s opinion.
As for stock i did not said such explicitly (good catch though) and i was replying to some other person (unless you are the chello.se “anonymous” person.)
“Or if the beautiful Sun were used?”
Woops. I meant their logo.
I agree with you on your post as well… although you were completely horribily rude to me.. i expect that..odd isn’t it? maybe i dont make myself clear enough.
i dont care much about groklaw.
Hey and mr Sun zealot, go compare that with the JDS license.
Your post is comparing two sperate things. If you buy RedHat enterprise linux from Redhat and want support, you have to abide by Redhat’s license, which is just as restrictive as JDS’.
The only way to acquire JDS is to buy it which includes support. So the bottom line is if you buy either product you have to abide by restrictive licensing. So for enterprises buying licenses from Redaht there is no difference.
Yes redhat let’s you download only thier source RPMS for free. I don’t think businesses have the time nor the money to download and rebuild everything from source and create a distribution. If you go with whitebox, it isn’t really RedHat now is it, No support.
As you said yourself, all of redhat’s source is opensource. JDS contains non opensource technology, if you remove all of that you have SUSE linux desktop, to which the same rules apply as redhat.
You really are comparing two very differenct things.
Wow if i was one of the guys that put my blood and sweat into code that made Solaris great. I would be seriously PO’ed about having my work and ideas essentially given away to the public.
“Your post is comparing two sperate things. If you buy RedHat enterprise linux from Redhat and want support, you have to abide by Redhat’s license, which is just as restrictive as JDS’.”
Please back this up with sources and share your analysis.
“If you go with whitebox, it isn’t really RedHat now is it, No support.”
Depends on one’s interests.
I agree it was an invalid compare.
Are you here trolling as well????
How about you read up on what the word freedom means and you’ll see that what Red Hat distributes is hardly free neither, since it’s GPL… now go figure..
“About Red Hat… Why is is that I am unable to copy red hat enterprise cd’s? I can’t redistribute it. Even on the sites you listed, like whitebox, it clearly states that its because of the red hat copyrights and trademarks do not allow it. Under the GPL you are required to show the source. So, your arguement is baseless and pointless. I was talking about the actual “Red Hat Enterprise Linux” Not the same thing with the copyrights stripped. ”
honestly i think you are confusing trademarks and copyright. lets see.
why does redhat enforce this trademark so much?
answer: because it will lose the trademark unless actively enforced in the US. so yes redhat will not allow you to use the trademark freely as you want. this is not something new. fedora and redhat linux had it too.
read
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/
copyright is completely under a free license. every piece of software is free. thats why redhat shouldnt be called non free.
any arguments?
If SUN does opern source parts of Solaris you are goingt of feel stupid. But I suppose that is why you post as anonymous, because you think you are wrong.
By the way since when is SCO the judge of what is derived/permisable/etc?
I think SUN realises that SCO is about to loose everything in the courts.
“By the way since when is SCO the judge of what is derived/permisable/etc? ”
they are one of the two parties who signed the contract. they are not the judge but relevant.
“I think SUN realises that SCO is about to loose everything in the courts.”
why not atleast give a press release or say that what sco has said about sun is not true or file a slander of title suit against sco. no action and no comments from sun speaks volumes
Please back this up with sources and share your analysis.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States…
“The term “Software” means the subscription for the family of software products purchased under this Agreement and defined herein, if any. The term “Installed Systems” means the number of Systems on which Customer installs or executes the Software. The term “System” means any hardware on which the Software is installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work station, a virtual machine, a blade, a partition or an engine, as applicable. The initial number of Installed Systems is the number of copies of the Software that Customer purchases. The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement will govern future purchases by Customer of Red Hat’s products and services unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing.
………..
4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer’s facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any such audit shall only take place during Customer’s normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat shall conduct no more than one such audit in any twelve-month period except for the express purpose of assuring compliance by Customer where non-compliance has been established in a prior audit. Red Hat shall give Customer written notice of any non-compliance, and if a payment deficiency exists, then Customer shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice to make payment to Red Hat for any payment deficiency. The amount of the payment deficiency will be determined by multiplying the number of underreported Installed Systems or Services by the annual fee for such item. If Customer is found to have underreported the number of Installed Systems or amount of Services by more than five percent (5%), Customer shall, in addition to the annual fee for such item, pay liquidated damages equal to twenty percent (20%) of the underreported fees for loss of income and administration costs suffered by Red Hat as a result.”
Is this good enough.
Sun ships JDS with two or more licenses. The binary code license and the GPL portion making up the SUSE linux base OS.