6 ms·

Danese is wrong. Ask the other people involved; they don't agree with her. Almost any copyleft license that Sun could have chosen at the time would have been

Danese is wrong. Ask the other people involved; they don't agree with her. Almost any copyleft license that Sun could have chosen at the time would have been incompatible with the GPL; and multi-licensing wasn't seen as a viable option. It's all a moot point now anyway, but I wish some individuals would stop acting like Danese is the sole truthful source on this just because it fits their armchair conspiracy theories.

gillianseed 13y ago
Danese actually _wrote the licence_ as per the requirements set to her by the Sun management. She is as such the foremost authority on this of those who has publically spoken on the subject. Who are these 'other people involved'? Involved in what? Unless they were involved in the licence creation what do they really know? She (Danese) is not 'wrong', she is either outright lying (to what end?) or telling the truth. Again she, as the person who actually wrote the licence obviously knows the truth. And how is it an 'armchair conspiracy theory' that the Sun management did not want to allow Linux (their main competitor who was also eating their lunch in the marketplace) to use the technology they (Sun) was open sourcing? From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense, and thus is entirely plausible. That doesn't mean that there weren't Sun developers who had no interest in denying Linux use of Solaris 'tech, but they were not calling the shots, Sun management was. And again from a management perspective it makes no sense to give away your advantages to your main competitor.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this, and she did not really "write the license". The license is based on the MPL (Mozilla Public License), and was written by Sun's legal staff in consultation with management and others inside of Sun at the time. I know it would be wonderful to just wrap the licensing conspiracy theories up in a pretty bow because it fits your logical conclusions, but it isn't that simple. I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong. There is a difference. Danese may have believed that it was done for the reasons she claims, but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it. There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so; with that, I feel safe in saying she is wrong (nevermind my own involvement).
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    >Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this Who else would be? And yes, she did write the CDDL according to both herself and according to Simon Phipps, certainly it was scrutinised and possibly altered by Sun legal staff, but her writing it (as per the prerequisites made to her by Sun management) is undisputed. It doesn't matter if the licence was based upon MPL, the final licence is not MPL, it instead reflects the requests put upon Danese by that of Sun's management (and legal staff). >but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it. You are the one denying the words of Danese while offering nothing whatsoever to support your claims. All you are doing is to claim that trusting the words of the person who wrote the licence is akin to buying into 'conspiracy theories', nevermind that everything she said also makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. If anything comes across as a 'fairy tale', it's the idea that Sun would allow Linux to incorporate Sun's technical advantages at a point where they were losing to Linux in the marketplace. The person who wrote the licence claims she was told to prevent this, business logic strongly supports her claims, yet you pretend it's some 'conspiracy theory' while offering nothing to support your claims. >I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong. Come on, she is either lying or she is telling the truth, you keep trying to dance around this. She (Danese) wrote the licence (nothing has been put forth disputing this), she says that making it GPLv2 (Linux) incompatible was a prerequisite. She either lies or she is telling the truth. I believe her because: A) I can't think of any reason for her to lie B) it makes perfect sense from a business perspective >There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so How are they qualified?
    - deirdres 13y ago
      At this point in the history of the CDDL, it's very much open to question what anyone's motives were at the time it was written. It is likely that the various parties involved - even within Sun - had varying motives: Sun, like any other large organization, was not monolithic in its opinions nor even its behavior. Whatever the CDDL was designed or hoped to do, the ultimate question of what it /will/ do may someday be decided by a court. In the meantime, Oracle - which is notoriously well-equipped with lawyers - apparently believes that the CDDL-vs-GPL question does not prevent it from porting DTrace to Linux. If someone disagrees with them strongly enough to… well, do what, exactly? …that will be entertaining. In the meantime, why does anyone bother to argue about whether Danese wrote the CDDL, didn't write it, knew what Sun was really after in writing it, or tap-danced naked down Sandhill Road while writing it?DTrace is coming to Linux, CDDL or no CDDL. That ought to be cause for rejoicing, not flogging the dead license horse.

gillianseed 13y ago

Danese actually _wrote the licence_ as per the requirements set to her by the Sun management. She is as such the foremost authority on this of those who has publically spoken on the subject. Who are these 'other people involved'? Involved in what? Unless they were involved in the licence creation what do they really know? She (Danese) is not 'wrong', she is either outright lying (to what end?) or telling the truth. Again she, as the person who actually wrote the licence obviously knows the truth. And how is it an 'armchair conspiracy theory' that the Sun management did not want to allow Linux (their main competitor who was also eating their lunch in the marketplace) to use the technology they (Sun) was open sourcing? From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense, and thus is entirely plausible. That doesn't mean that there weren't Sun developers who had no interest in denying Linux use of Solaris 'tech, but they were not calling the shots, Sun management was. And again from a management perspective it makes no sense to give away your advantages to your main competitor.

binarycrusader 13y ago
Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this, and she did not really "write the license". The license is based on the MPL (Mozilla Public License), and was written by Sun's legal staff in consultation with management and others inside of Sun at the time. I know it would be wonderful to just wrap the licensing conspiracy theories up in a pretty bow because it fits your logical conclusions, but it isn't that simple. I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong. There is a difference. Danese may have believed that it was done for the reasons she claims, but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it. There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so; with that, I feel safe in saying she is wrong (nevermind my own involvement).
- gillianseed 13y ago
  >Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this Who else would be? And yes, she did write the CDDL according to both herself and according to Simon Phipps, certainly it was scrutinised and possibly altered by Sun legal staff, but her writing it (as per the prerequisites made to her by Sun management) is undisputed. It doesn't matter if the licence was based upon MPL, the final licence is not MPL, it instead reflects the requests put upon Danese by that of Sun's management (and legal staff). >but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it. You are the one denying the words of Danese while offering nothing whatsoever to support your claims. All you are doing is to claim that trusting the words of the person who wrote the licence is akin to buying into 'conspiracy theories', nevermind that everything she said also makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. If anything comes across as a 'fairy tale', it's the idea that Sun would allow Linux to incorporate Sun's technical advantages at a point where they were losing to Linux in the marketplace. The person who wrote the licence claims she was told to prevent this, business logic strongly supports her claims, yet you pretend it's some 'conspiracy theory' while offering nothing to support your claims. >I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong. Come on, she is either lying or she is telling the truth, you keep trying to dance around this. She (Danese) wrote the licence (nothing has been put forth disputing this), she says that making it GPLv2 (Linux) incompatible was a prerequisite. She either lies or she is telling the truth. I believe her because: A) I can't think of any reason for her to lie B) it makes perfect sense from a business perspective >There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so How are they qualified?
  - deirdres 13y ago
    At this point in the history of the CDDL, it's very much open to question what anyone's motives were at the time it was written. It is likely that the various parties involved - even within Sun - had varying motives: Sun, like any other large organization, was not monolithic in its opinions nor even its behavior. Whatever the CDDL was designed or hoped to do, the ultimate question of what it /will/ do may someday be decided by a court. In the meantime, Oracle - which is notoriously well-equipped with lawyers - apparently believes that the CDDL-vs-GPL question does not prevent it from porting DTrace to Linux. If someone disagrees with them strongly enough to… well, do what, exactly? …that will be entertaining. In the meantime, why does anyone bother to argue about whether Danese wrote the CDDL, didn't write it, knew what Sun was really after in writing it, or tap-danced naked down Sandhill Road while writing it?DTrace is coming to Linux, CDDL or no CDDL. That ought to be cause for rejoicing, not flogging the dead license horse.