[indiana-discuss] License and redistribution of the OpenSolaris updates

[James Cornell]

Sorry... that's thicker than a milkshake to respond to...

Let me name the following things most "freeloaders" (Sic: free and  
open software stiffs) install:
VMware, VirtualBox, Adobe Flash, NVIDIA Drivers, ATI Drivers, Broadcom  
Firmware, Mathematica, Matlab, Maya...  VirtualBox you may argue is  
open-source, but not as a whole title, the tools involved with  
developing are not all open, nor is the commercial version which there  
is no word on becoming completely open as well...

A lot of these are bundled with OpenSolaris (Not Indiana) already...  
they are not needed to have the system function.  The closed part is a  
bulk of compatibility libraries such as Motif and older Java releases,  
then a few tools which Sun had probably sold licenses for in the past,  
then their compilers obviously.  We'll then the cluster software, oh  
and of course Xsun, oh and firmware for their hardware, oh... well I'm  
sure there's more.  Mainly just SPARC stuff here and old crappy CDE  
libraries that we need to worry about, Sun needs to make "Open"SPARC  
as a platform completely open if they are to continue using that name.

Let's see how Red Hat or Ubuntu does it...
Ubuntu provides NVIDIA, MP3, Flash through a repository, most people  
don't opt for alternatives.  Red Hat is probably more free than Ubuntu  
in source, but distribution wise both break your supposed cardinal  
rules of being free only.

Richard Stallman recently made a comment about FreeBSD ports making  
BSD an un-open system as it allowed people to use closed software.   
Sometimes people prefer or due to requirements have to opt for closed,  
stop trying to shove it down people's throats.

What do I feel should be open that Sun is largely responsible for?   
Sun Studio compilers (As a lot of stuff is built with them, including  
the kernel), Bootstrap tools, Un-gunking firmware no-no's for some of  
their hardware (Not NVIDIA obviously this is reverse engineered, I  
mean their firmware flash utility, if we are to be open and argue  
stupid things we'll ask for impossible rewards immediately)

Seriously, the main issue is how the system is built not what's  
optionally available, if you ran FreeBSD like I do in full time on one  
or more systems, you wouldn't make a daft comment saying "I stopped  
using ports because Richard Stallman wanted me to, oh and I'm gonna  
only support the GPL and I'm gonna pee on vendors because they're  
stupid butt poop heads" it is not going to fly.  Un-encumbering the  
build tools is the first and most important step Sun will ever make,  
stop arguing under other pretenses about things that are probably not  
even immediately possible.  I mean within a years time here.  For the  
interest of an open world I understand why people argue to only allow  
users to be free, but it is a total buzz kill to anyone trying to make  
real work, such as businesses, who generally don't care if their  
custom patches from Sun are under NDA or not, when typically Sun can  
offer something like hardware vendor engineer support for closed or  
specialty hardware that people in their garage don't need nor can  
afford.

James

On Jun 1, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Sean Sprague wrote:

> Tim,
>
> All right, I have my "thick idiot" hat well and truly in place for  
> this.
>
>> There are 2 separate things.
>> 1. OpenSolaris 2008.05 and all software packages on  
>> pkg.opensolaris.org
>> which are fully redistributable are free to use and deploy.
>>
>
> All fine and understood.
>
>> 2. There will be a set of non-redistributable software which may  
>> require
>> either payment or simply a click-through type license which will be  
>> on
>> pkg.sun.com, which you can freely (or use via payment where  
>> applicable)
>> use but can't redistribute.   We expect this to be available  
>> sometime in
>> mid to late June.
>>
>
> Now here's where I have a comprehension problem. Firstly OpenSolaris  
> is
> the first fully-redistributable Sun-crafted operating environment.   
> Now
> you say that  on top of this, from pkg.sun.com you can layer software
> which renders your base OpenSolaris installation no longer open and
> redistributable. This feels the same as building opensolaris from the
> code base, and then having to include all the closed-bins stuff to  
> make
> it no longer fully open. So realistically, for your distro-developer,
> you have to say "don't install anything from pkg.sun.com, otherwise  
> you
> could will be liable to be infringing licensing of some kind; oh,  
> and if
> you do, please have your credit card handy". OK; I s'pose I can go for
> that. But is this correct?
>
> Reading the title of the email, "redistribution of the OpenSolaris
> updates", surely if you install anything from pkg.sun.com, then you de
> facto are no longer running OpenSolaris - rather just an
> unredistributable hybrid. Rather a useless beast, as it is no longer
> OpenSolaris - the redistributable distro, nor Solaris-anything-else;  
> and
> I guess no longer supportable within the OpenSolaris paid-for
> subscription framework? Or has/is a means been/being put in place to
> cater for this?
>
> Any clarification (even if it is just "oh be quiet and go away")
> gratefully received.
>
> Regards... Sean.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/attachments/20080601/6675d83c/attachment.html>