4 ms·

>As for your misunderstanding of history with respect to OpenSolaris licensing: the decision to use a modified MPL (i.e., the CDDL) and not the GPLv2 had nothin

>As for your misunderstanding of history with respect to OpenSolaris licensing: the decision to use a modified MPL (i.e., the CDDL) and not the GPLv2 had nothing to do with Linux The actual creator of the CDDL licence, Daneese Cooper claims that it was indeed crafted to be GPLv2 incompatible, and of course from a business standpoint that also makes perfect sense as Linux was eating Solaris in the market and handing over their technical advantages (ZFS, Dtrace) for inclusion in to Linux would have made no sense to Sun's management. So both the word of the person responsible for the licence, aswell as pure business logic says that it was indeed created to be incompatible with GPLv2. It's also hilarious when you say something like this: >For example, GPLv2 has prevented the integration of open source technologies like DTrace and ZFS in Linux • Was it the intent of those who licensed their work under GPLv2 to erect walls within open source software? Linux was already GPLv2 licence when Sun decided to licence Dtrace and ZFS under CDDL a new licence they created, when they (Sun) instead could have chosen a number of GPLv2 compatible licences under which they could have licenced their code had they so wished, or even made sure that the one they ended up creating would be GPLv2 compatible. Of course that was never the intent, for VERY logical reasons, this is just as JoshTriplett said, 'an absurd amount of spin' on your part.

bcantrill 12y ago
Danese Cooper was not the "actual creator" of the CDDL; she was one person among several who advised the efforts internally, and Simon Phipps played a much larger role in the drafting and selection of the CDDL -- and (again) he is very explicit as to why a modified MPL was selected.[1] Of course, I appreciate that the facts don't fit with your chosen narrative here and that you are much more likely to discard the facts than change your narrative... [1] http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9624 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9624
- gillianseed 12y ago
  Simon Phipps himself introduced Danese Cooper as -"the one who actually wrote the CDDL", at the 6th annual Debian conference where Danese Cooper said that it CDDL was indeed drafted to be incompatible with GPLv2. I realize this does not fit 'your chosen narrative', but hey.
  - mattl 12y ago
    So, I found this which is interesting. https://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013 https://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.openso... Search for 'webmink' in there (Phipps username)
    - gillianseed 12y ago
      Yes it is interesting, the post states both Danese and many engineers, promoted GPL. But the Sun management was not going to use GPLv2, despite it being available, and according Danese they management was hoping for GPLv3 to be released which would be GPLv2 incompatible (since Linux is GPLv2 ONLY) but it was taking too much time. And in the very post you linked, he (Phipps) lists GPLv3, not GPLv2 as an alternative for licencing, gee. This ties in with what he said in the Debconf video where Danese spoke about the deliberate GPLv2 incompability, he says later in the video (after Danese has spoken) that "I actually disagree with Danese to some degree", where he states that Sun's management wanted something copyleft, while stating that the engineers had a strong BSD preference (somewhat at odds with what he wrote in what you linked), and that waiting for GPLv3 to be finalized or be allowed by Sun legal to release under the unfinished GPLv3 licence would have taken years and probably involved mass resignations. Again, GPLv2 was available at this point, along with a lot of other GPLv2 compatible licences, yet GPLv2 or any compatible licence was never on the table, instead the question was to either wait for GPLv3 (which would not be compatible with Linux GPLv2 ONLY) or draft a new licence, one which as it turns out was GPLv2 incompatible and thus Linux incompatible, go figure! Now from a business standpoint I can't blame Sun for this choice, they were fighting an uphill battle against Linux as it was, and letting their crown-jewels such as ZFS, DTrace be incorporated in to the Linux kernel would hardly have made it easier for them to compete. As for Phipps statements, at this time he was Sun's 'open source chief officer', a job which obviously included mending bridges with the FOSS community which had been burned by Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz who was attacking GPL as something which allowed the US to 'pillage developing countries of intellectual property' amongst other things. Of course that was just desperation on his part as the attack was not actually leveraged at GPL itself but rather the GPL licenced Linux kernel against which Solaris was losing market, further illustrated by Sun later releasing Java under GPL.

bcantrill 12y ago

Danese Cooper was not the "actual creator" of the CDDL; she was one person among several who advised the efforts internally, and Simon Phipps played a much larger role in the drafting and selection of the CDDL -- and (again) he is very explicit as to why a modified MPL was selected.[1] Of course, I appreciate that the facts don't fit with your chosen narrative here and that you are much more likely to discard the facts than change your narrative... [1] http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9624 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9624

gillianseed 12y ago
Simon Phipps himself introduced Danese Cooper as -"the one who actually wrote the CDDL", at the 6th annual Debian conference where Danese Cooper said that it CDDL was indeed drafted to be incompatible with GPLv2. I realize this does not fit 'your chosen narrative', but hey.
- mattl 12y ago
  So, I found this which is interesting. https://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=55013 https://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.openso... Search for 'webmink' in there (Phipps username)
  - gillianseed 12y ago
    Yes it is interesting, the post states both Danese and many engineers, promoted GPL. But the Sun management was not going to use GPLv2, despite it being available, and according Danese they management was hoping for GPLv3 to be released which would be GPLv2 incompatible (since Linux is GPLv2 ONLY) but it was taking too much time. And in the very post you linked, he (Phipps) lists GPLv3, not GPLv2 as an alternative for licencing, gee. This ties in with what he said in the Debconf video where Danese spoke about the deliberate GPLv2 incompability, he says later in the video (after Danese has spoken) that "I actually disagree with Danese to some degree", where he states that Sun's management wanted something copyleft, while stating that the engineers had a strong BSD preference (somewhat at odds with what he wrote in what you linked), and that waiting for GPLv3 to be finalized or be allowed by Sun legal to release under the unfinished GPLv3 licence would have taken years and probably involved mass resignations. Again, GPLv2 was available at this point, along with a lot of other GPLv2 compatible licences, yet GPLv2 or any compatible licence was never on the table, instead the question was to either wait for GPLv3 (which would not be compatible with Linux GPLv2 ONLY) or draft a new licence, one which as it turns out was GPLv2 incompatible and thus Linux incompatible, go figure! Now from a business standpoint I can't blame Sun for this choice, they were fighting an uphill battle against Linux as it was, and letting their crown-jewels such as ZFS, DTrace be incorporated in to the Linux kernel would hardly have made it easier for them to compete. As for Phipps statements, at this time he was Sun's 'open source chief officer', a job which obviously included mending bridges with the FOSS community which had been burned by Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz who was attacking GPL as something which allowed the US to 'pillage developing countries of intellectual property' amongst other things. Of course that was just desperation on his part as the attack was not actually leveraged at GPL itself but rather the GPL licenced Linux kernel against which Solaris was losing market, further illustrated by Sun later releasing Java under GPL.