From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HsdDr-0000ud-Oy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:17:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4SBFPGx017151; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:15:25 GMT Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4SBFObo017146 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:15:25 GMT Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HsdBu-00071e-85 for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 13:15:10 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-97-33.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.33]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 13:15:10 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-33.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 13:15:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Sun and GPL Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:14:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5bdc1c8b0705261207q2845c578rdf1d85bd2e4db1d@mail.gmail.com> <20070526165134.77091d7f@mandalor.homelinux.net> <200705270848.11742.gentoo102004@joerg.in-berlin.de> <20070527131103.770b71c6@Bazaar> <20070528024149.4f6d918c@Bazaar> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-33.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.130 (Hyperbolicsyllabicsesquedalymistic) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l4SBFPHv017151 X-Archives-Salt: 89a302cb-0ced-4c95-8819-324dec73d6bd X-Archives-Hash: 85d6b7bac5f0063dcb27083d1a8f8b73 Isidore Ducasse posted 20070528024149.4f6d918c@Bazaar, excerpted below, on Mon, 28 May 2007 02:41:49 +0200: > le Sun, 27 May 2007 23:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> = a > =C3=A9crit: >=20 >> They ARE considering dual-licensing Solaris under GPLv3, however, whic= h >> they've been working closely with the FSF on. Of course that's not a >> given until it's out, but it'd definitely widen the interest base (I >> for one may well be interested, especially if Linux stays GPLv2 only). >=20 > You mean the bare kernel, right? Solaris' kernel could be an alternativ= e > to linux? Is the latter really different from the *BSD's? I've installe= d > a NetBSD on my machine "for fun" recently (tho I switched back to using > my good'ol gentoo, can't get used to anything else now. pkgsrc looks > like a sympathetic old auntie); it appears to practice monolithic > kernel. What would be different in running a GPLv3 kernel? I've read > about the anti-DRM part of it; is there some other reason you/we could > be interested in it? BSS Jr's response covered much of what I would have covered, but I've a=20 bit to add in places. What I think Sun may be angling for in their leaning towards releasing=20 OpenSolaris under the GPLv3, particularly since earlier the Linux kernel=20 devs were nearly unanimous in saying they weren't interested in moving to= =20 the GPLv3 (as I said, based on the early drafts), is ideally to "Out- Linux Linux", so to speak. First, you may or may not have heard of Nexenta, or the Gentoo on=20 OpenSolaris port, etc. You also may or may not be aware that Gentoo/FBSD= =20 is one of the other Gentoo Alt projects, from what I read coming along=20 reasonably well, too. =3D8^) Basically, what many of these do is a variant of GNU/Linux, only in this=20 case, GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris or GNU/whatever, with the GNU toolchain and=20 GNU based userland running on whatever other *ix kernel, be it FBSD,=20 Solaris, whatever. Debian does it. Gentoo does it. That's not new. In fact, to some extent it's older than GNU/Linux, or at least older than= =20 the popularization of GNU/Linux, back when Linux wasn't half the kernel=20 it is today, and was way under-featured and under-speced compared to the=20 Unixes of the time. Back then, while GNU had a relatively mature=20 userland, it lacked a good kernel. At the same time, many of the Unixes=20 (Solaris included, this was back around Solaris 2, thru Solaris 4 or so,=20 tho Linux was coming on strong by then) had solid kernels but aging and=20 hard to work with userlands. It therefore wasn't uncommon for people to=20 buy a Sun box, and essentially replace most of the Solaris userland tools= =20 with GNU tools. If you read about the time, many people tell how the=20 first thing they did after they got Solaris up and running was install=20 the GNU tools, and pretty much never use the Solaris tools again. So there's really some history to GNU/Solaris, and it's not as strange a=20 thought to /either/ side as it might appear to some of us newbies to the=20 scene. Now that Sun seems to be "seeing the light" in terms of free and open=20 source software (note that they have a lot of code in a typical Linux=20 install already, Open/Star Office, Java, particularly on servers, they=20 are huge GNOME sponsors), and have already opened much of their Solaris=20 code under the CDDL as OpenSolaris, were they to go GPLv3, with the GNU=20 code ALSO licensed GPLv3 (after the official license comes out, of=20 course), /especially/ if the Linux kernel remains GPLv2 only, it's / quite/ possible Stallman and the FSF might officially bless GNU/Solaris=20 and deemphasize GNU/HURD AND Linux. He/they might then see that as one=20 of the ways to encourage the use of GPLv3, in the face-off with Linux=20 staying GPLv2. Obviously, that could put a whole new twist on the way we= =20 see the Free Software community. That's the Solaris side. Now examine the side staying with GPLv2, if=20 Linux indeed does so. What's the future look like? Well, we have the=20 likes of Tivo, already making it impossible to run the so-called "open"=20 code on their hardware, due to code signing and not releasing the keys=20 necessary to run any user modifications on that hardware. Many people=20 predict that's the way DRM may head, the way of Intel/MS Palladium, aka=20 "Trusted Computing", as well. As another example, we have the HDMI=20 digital audio/video interface, designed to only run what is properly=20 licensed to run, or at least only allow it access to "privileged" data=20 such as media content. Then we have the whole Novell/MS patent deal thing, where MS licenses its= =20 technology to certain preferred Novell users, but not others, and not=20 those using other distributions. Further, MS says they won't sue=20 hobbyist developers as long as they only use the changes they make=20 themselves, not distributing them. Of course, that breaks the back of=20 the whole idea of Free Software. The GPLv2 doesn't have any direct=20 protection against such things, but the GPLv3 has been engineered in such= =20 a way that if you use GPLv3 code covered by your patents, if you let=20 anybody else use it, any customers, etc, well then, it applies to all,=20 customer and non-customer alike. So, the future looks like it could be pretty dark for freedom, if we=20 continue to depend on GPLv2. The license will practically be little=20 different than the 3-clause BSD license, as people will be able to=20 effectively close their code, with patent agreements exploiting the MS/ Novell loophole and hardware signed code verification Tivoizing things so= =20 even with source, modified code won't run, even if they can't directly=20 close it. That kills the dynamic that has made Linux and a lot of GPLv2=20 code what it is. Without that dynamic, it could easily be headed for the= =20 relatively quiet backwaters neighboring the BSDs, open source still, but=20 not (practically) forcing folks to contribute their changes back, thus=20 slowing down development. Put those two together and you have what I think Sun is hoping for. If=20 the OpenSolaris kernel can become /the/ blessed GNU kernel, and Linux=20 says GPLv2 and gets BSDed, OpenSolaris could eventually eclipse Linux. =20 While it wouldn't be proprietary, and it's likely they'll have to open up= =20 development even further in ordered for it to take off and become really=20 dominant, so other companies would contribute and could distribute it=20 just as they distribute Linux today, Sun would still be in a /very/ good=20 position. I think that's the game they are playing, the ultimate goal they have in=20 mind. And yes, if they go GPLv3 with the Solaris kernel, and Linux stays= =20 GPLv2, IMO it's quite possible it'll happen that way. =20 IMO, the Linux devs will ultimately realize this too, and have to choose=20 between marginalization and going GPLv3. In fact, from Linus' recent=20 comments, he seems to already be giving himself room to do that. Yes,=20 many of the issues he raised have been addressed, definitely making it=20 easier to come around, but he may be seeing this same game being played=20 out in his head too, and not particularly like its result. > BTW isn't there a technical issue licensing a single version of a soft > against two incompatible licenses? Or did you mean dual-licensing GPLv2 > and GPLv3? It depends on who holds the copyrights. The copyright holder can license= =20 however they please, and in fact distribute under a license that makes no= =20 sense, if they wish to. It's the other people that have to live with the= =20 legal uncertainty, and that uncertainty exists ONLY because if the=20 license isn't consistent, the copyright holder can yank permissions to=20 distribute or even continue to run the software at all (because at least=20 in the US, the act of loading into memory from disk or other permanent=20 storage has been held to be an act of copying, thus subject to copyright=20 restrictions and permissions). However, this wouldn't ultimately be inconsistent. The idea is similar=20 to the business model used by Trolltech for Qt and by the MySQL guys for=20 it. In both cases, they dual (or more, triple...) license their software= =20 GPL, and proprietary. The developer/user/distributor gets to choose=20 which of the two licenses they agree to. If they are going to free the=20 code of anything they build on it, great, the GPL license works just=20 fine. However, if they want to build proprietary tools on the dual- licensed software, they can't use the GPL, and must pay the company in=20 question for a proprietary-commercial license, which generally costs a=20 significant amount of money. This has in fact been a QUITE successful business model for Trolltech. =20 The open source guys develop stuff like KDE on Qt, which works as a=20 pretty convincing demonstration of the capacities of the toolkit, as well= =20 as providing feedback and new features and bugfixes from the community. =20 Other companies see how effective Qt is, and how it could shorten and=20 improve their development process, and not willing to release their own=20 code, they must pay to buy a commercial license from Trolltech. Yet they= =20 are happy to do so, because the return is far more than what they pay. =20 This in turn funds Trolltech to pay developers to continue to advance the= =20 product, benefiting both their paying customers and the Free Software=20 side. This model has in fact been SO successful for Trolltech that with Qt4,=20 they opened up the GPL licensing to apply to Qt on MSWindows as well --=20 it formerly applied only to the *ix platform. They'd not dare open up=20 the possibility of a free version on MS if the model wasn't already=20 demonstratedly working very well for them. In doing so, they've also=20 opened up the possibility of KDE on MS, and in fact, much of KDE 4 is=20 indeed going to run on and be available for MS Windows as well as Linux=20 and the other *ix platforms. (Not the entire thing. Most general KDE4=20 apps will run in MS, they say, but KDE as a unified environment is going=20 to remain *ix only, for both practical/technical and political reasons. =20 For example MSWindows already has a windowing system, so KDE's isn't=20 necessary. Thus, the full experience will remain a 'nix thing. That=20 said, Konqueror for example, could give Firefox some serious competition,= =20 with its KHTML engine already being the basis of Apple Safari, so it'll=20 now run on all three platforms just as Firefox does, and people could=20 start with Konqueror and other KDE apps on MS, and continue using the=20 same things when they switch to Linux -- or OpenSolaris. =3D8^) So anyway, as long as Sun holds its own copyrights, and/or has gotten=20 appropriate permission from the other owners where Sun doesn't hold them,= =20 they can license however they please. >> Of course Linus and the other kernel devs were originally very much >> against early GPLv3 drafts. >=20 > Is it a matter of diverging positions towards industrial partners/users= ? I think Boyd covered that pretty well. >> The Gentoo Java devs are working on it, but as I said, I don't believe >> enough of the entire Java infrastructure has been released as GPL yet >> to do the entire thing as sources. Even after it has, it'll take >> several months as experimental ebuilds in the Java overlay (emerge >> layman and read up on using it, if interested) >=20 > Ok! Does anyone know the difference between the java-overlay and the > java-gcj-overlay? GCJ is GCC's Java compiler. Generally, it'd be for compiling Java=20 sources to arch-native code, not to the traditional VM targeted Java=20 bytecode. Thus, while it might be useful for someone wishing to compile=20 their Java app just as they would a C/C++/whatever app, to native binary=20 code to directly execute on their CPU, it's not particularly interesting=20 for someone primarily interested in Java as a browser VM. Since you specifically mentioned Java as a browser VM, I therefore assume= =20 you will be more interested in the standard java-overlay. One word of caution, just in case you hadn't figured this out from what I= =20 and others have already said. The Gentoo devs (and contributing users,=20 overlays give the flexibility to allow non-Gentoo-dev users more direct=20 access, if the devs in charge of the overlay trust them of course,=20 without the user having to go thru the entire Gentoo dev process) use the= =20 java-overlay as a staging ground for working stuff up to standard Gentoo=20 tree quality. Some major changes go on there. It was used to work out=20 the switch to the new java-config arrangement before it hit the tree, for= =20 instance. However, as the staging ground, it won't always work like the=20 unmasked stuff in the tree should work. At times, parts of it will be=20 broken, and you'll have to do some things manually in ordered to get=20 stuff to work, or unmerge it and go back to the stuff in the tree, if=20 it's too broken. It's there for users to use if they feel up to it,=20 hopefully to test and pitch in and help if they find stuff broken. =20 However, don't expect it to all just work all the time, because it's a=20 development overlay, and development is what happens there, including=20 breakage at times. If you are prepared to deal with that, well, go for=20 it! =3D8^) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman --=20 gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list