5 ms·

> I'm sure FreeBSD and IllumOS developers alike are researching the legality of incorporating the leaked code. There isn't any legality. Do you remember the wa

> I'm sure FreeBSD and IllumOS developers alike are researching the legality of incorporating the leaked code. There isn't any legality. Do you remember the waste of time and money that was the SCO case against IBM for possibly incorporating SCO unix code into Linux. This leak is a leak of stolen IP and no one can legally use it, very plain and simple. This won't hurt them much other than to embarrass them a little.

pasbesoin 15y ago
I'm not saying it's the case, here, but beware of the trojan horse, full of heavily funded IP lawyers itching to sue (and/or correspondingly spend) your project and perhaps you into oblivion. Such releases can actually pose a risk to open source if and when OS developers have to "prove" their lack of exposure vis à vis the "clean" nature of their own work. That all aside, I'm not exactly in Oracle's camp. RIP Sun -- warts and all.
bcantrill 15y ago
Well, it depends if the CDDL has been stripped off the files or not. If the CDDL has been stripped off and replaced with anything that denotes that the source is now a trade secret, then yes -- it's stolen IP. But if the CDDL is still there, the situation will be murky, and I would hope that Oracle would clarify it one way or the other. Remember, this is not simply a proprietary system, it's a system (1) that was open source not very long ago (2) that was closed without a public announcement of any kind and (3) for which an internal commitment was made to make the source code available after Solaris 11 shipped. [1] Point is: this isn't SCO by a long shot. [1] http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-development-of-illumos-2/ http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-develop...
bediger 15y ago
This leak isn't "stolen IP". At best, the leak might constitute infringement, which is not theft by any measure. We won't even know whether it infringes or not if and until it goes to trial, and a judgement is rendered. You can't inspect for infringement, it must be determined at trial. Even the idea of "Intellectual property" (assuming that's what you meant by "IP") is a bit suspect. Although this leak probably (but not certainly, see above) constitutes copyright infringement, lots of independent invention goes on, far more than the "IP" people want to admit. The "property" part of "IP" is on very weak moral grounds, as in the US, the grant of a state-sponsored monopoly on seom material is only in effect to give a larger public domain for later common use. So it would appear to not be "plain and simple", but rather extremely murky and costly to figure out, so nobody can use the leak without a lot of consideration.
rbanffy 15y ago
OTOH, we can check whether Oracle's source contains misappropriated code from other open-source products. The nasty part is that it's now much harder to say you never had any contact with Solaris 11's source code. I, in particular, will stay away from this file - I am more than happy with Linux and OpenIndiana and see no reason to use Solaris 11. Seriously. I don't even know what's new.

pasbesoin 15y ago

I'm not saying it's the case, here, but beware of the trojan horse, full of heavily funded IP lawyers itching to sue (and/or correspondingly spend) your project and perhaps you into oblivion. Such releases can actually pose a risk to open source if and when OS developers have to "prove" their lack of exposure vis à vis the "clean" nature of their own work. That all aside, I'm not exactly in Oracle's camp. RIP Sun -- warts and all.

bcantrill 15y ago

Well, it depends if the CDDL has been stripped off the files or not. If the CDDL has been stripped off and replaced with anything that denotes that the source is now a trade secret, then yes -- it's stolen IP. But if the CDDL is still there, the situation will be murky, and I would hope that Oracle would clarify it one way or the other. Remember, this is not simply a proprietary system, it's a system (1) that was open source not very long ago (2) that was closed without a public announcement of any kind and (3) for which an internal commitment was made to make the source code available after Solaris 11 shipped. [1] Point is: this isn't SCO by a long shot. [1] http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-development-of-illumos-2/ http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-develop...

bediger 15y ago

This leak isn't "stolen IP". At best, the leak might constitute infringement, which is not theft by any measure. We won't even know whether it infringes or not if and until it goes to trial, and a judgement is rendered. You can't inspect for infringement, it must be determined at trial. Even the idea of "Intellectual property" (assuming that's what you meant by "IP") is a bit suspect. Although this leak probably (but not certainly, see above) constitutes copyright infringement, lots of independent invention goes on, far more than the "IP" people want to admit. The "property" part of "IP" is on very weak moral grounds, as in the US, the grant of a state-sponsored monopoly on seom material is only in effect to give a larger public domain for later common use. So it would appear to not be "plain and simple", but rather extremely murky and costly to figure out, so nobody can use the leak without a lot of consideration.

rbanffy 15y ago

OTOH, we can check whether Oracle's source contains misappropriated code from other open-source products. The nasty part is that it's now much harder to say you never had any contact with Solaris 11's source code. I, in particular, will stay away from this file - I am more than happy with Linux and OpenIndiana and see no reason to use Solaris 11. Seriously. I don't even know what's new.