decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST

In case you were holding your breath, you can let it out now. Sun has declared itself. It doesn't care about the GPL segment of the FOSS community, the patents are only for signed-up licensees of the CDDL, and what's the beef?

I asked Dan Ravicher of if he had any reaction to share with you, and he said this:

"My advice is that developers should ask themselves if they really want to work on software distributed by a company that has expressly retained the right to sue them for patent infringement if they don't give their improvements back to the company."

Go here, choose Keynote Webcast Replay, then choose Java or Real Player, go to the popup selection, and on the left, choose the NC05Q1 Q & A, the final question-and-answer session and listen for yourself. At the very end of the segment, the executives are asked about the patent pledge, two questions interspersed with another about something else.

Schwartz mocks IBM's patent pledge, says that the GPL segment of the FOSS community is only one segment of it and there is a huge Open Source community outside of the GPL area, implying clearly that the nonGPL segment is all they are about. Scott says the open source community's unhappiness will all blow over, and he doesn't get it anyway. What's the beef?

He can't justify to his shareholders opening up all their IP, which they paid billions of dollars for, and just throwing it out there for the world to use. This was in answer to a journalist who asked why they wouldn't do what IBM did. Jonathan said the only thing that matters is IP.

So, there is our answer.

Charlie Demerjian has a piece in The Inquirer on the same conference. It made him queasy:

"The clumsy dodging of the Sun execs told me that they Sun is not really opening the patents, or the code.

"It's not that Sun is doing the same old thing it always does - that should come as a shock to no one, but the simple fact that it can't admit it. If you are going to sit on one side of the fence, that is fine by us, but don't play such transparent games. Basically, grow up.

"For all those waiting for Sun to stop dithering and do the right thing, move on, it won't. It is going to milk the process and it's trailing press for all it is worth. I was hopeful that it would have a change of heart, but the call convinced me otherwise.

"The saddest part of this is that until today, I was convinced that Sun was crawling its way out of the pit it found itself in after the .com bust. It re-worked the company, came up with a compelling new strategy, and was on the verge of co-opting one of the hottest trends in software.

"I saw the light at the end of the tunnel, but now I question it. I am openly calling on Sun to backpedal here and do the right thing. No weasel words, no hidden clauses, just open things up for real, or shut up and go back to the old ways. I can live with either version, and I think both would be better for Sun.

"Sun would be much better served by working honestly with open sourcers.

"This quarter's conference call can be summed up in this fashion. First is that Sun has a really neat technology which could potentially change a lot of things. Second it has all the tact in its presentation of a drunken football player on spring break trying to grope a cheerleader. For me, that ruined an otherwise great presentation."

I am, naturally, getting a lot of I told you so's, and I'm feeling a tad groped myself. So, about that CDDL. Watch out. That's what I'd say. Use it only if you trust implicitly in Sun. And if you do, I'd certainly like to know why. The community needs to watch this company like a hawk, in my view, after what I saw today. They are not yet full members of the Open Source community, to phrase it as positively as I can. They don't intend to be, unless they are absolutely forced to be, or perhaps they just don't know how to be. IBM wasn't so clear in the beginning, but they really decided to fit in and worked on the culture, not just the code. It is possible that Sun will do the same, but I saw no sign of it today.

It's just not their world view. The ethics of the GPL simply elude them. They prefer a Walled Garden approach that they hope will positively impact on their bottom line, if enough folks sign up to help them make some money. Do as you please, of course, and draw your own conclusions after listening to the conference session. But in my eyes, sadly, they are more users of the Open Source community than members of it and slumming in it. There is a difference.

And that's the beef.


Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees | 251 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:29 PM EST
<A HREF="">Clickable link</A>

[ Reply to This | # ]

OpenSolaris is stillborn
Authored by: ak on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:37 PM EST
I think that this is already the end of OpenSolaris. Sorry for all the effort
which people have put into this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Silly Me
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST
I thought it was about delivering superior products and service to the customers
and that then passing on the profit from that activity to the shareholders. How
disillusioning to learn that it is really 'all about the IP'. In laymens terms,
Schwartz says that shareholders do better when the company gouges it's
customers. Well, yeah, I guess, in the short term. But if that is your
attitude, you can bet that those customers have at least one eye on the exit and
are starting to shuffle off in that direction. In Sun's case, it is about to
become a stampede. As a stockholder whose investment Scott is supposedly
protecting, I've been hoping that somebody would zap him with a cluestick before
it is too late, but it is obvious, that isn't going to happen. Hopefully the 3rd
and 4th quarters will look a little better this year, and USIV+ is on schedule
so I can bail out at a slightly higher price. To all current Sun employees, all
I can say is I'm sorry it has come to this, and I wish you the bes of luck in
your next job.

Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Sauja on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST
Kinda reminds me of way back when SCO made source code available and someone
even back then suspected it was so they could later claim missappropriation.

Another backdoor into legal action against Linux, if CDDL licencees write code
for Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nothing has changed. It is still about the money.
Authored by: emmenjay on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST
Any conversation about ethics is wasted when you deal with big corporations.

Microsoft, SCO, Sun, IBM - they all have exactly one objective: to make money
for their shareholders.

SCO sued IBM because they thought it would make money. (OK, bad choice).

IBM stuck up for Linux because they believe that (long term) it will make them

Sun are using their new license to get OSS developers to work on Solaris. They
don't expect to make money from Linux, so they're not interested in providing
patents for Linux developers.

Nothing has changed.

Because IBM's objectives have been good for OSS of late, it is easy to think
that they are looking out for OSS. They are not.

IBM and their ilk (DEC, DG, etc.) are why RMS first got interested in OSS. They
were tying up computers with straightjacket licenses and he hated it.

For now, IBM are helping with OSS. So let's enjoy it. But have no illusions.
When the day comes that IBM thinks it can make more money by crossing OSS, it
will not hesitate for a picosecond.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST
All this GPL whining is really getting old. Where is the whining about Mozilla?
Or Eclipse? These have very similar licences to the CDDL but no one is lining up
to hammer either of them. Sun is taking a huge step in working to open the code
to Solaris even to the extent that is doing so under the CDDL. Sun is a
BUSINESS. Get over it. They are in business to MAKE MONEY. I don't see IBM
opening AIX. I don't see HP opening HP-UX. To me, THEY are the ones riding on
the backs of Open Source, not Sun. HP and IBM just play along nice as long as
they can sell hardware and services. If they could no longer do that around and
with Linux, they'd move on in a heartbeat, guaranteed. Simple fact is that the

Oh, and from a pure technology, robustness and stability standpoint Solaris is
head and shoulders above Linux. The Linux folks refuse to admit it, but it's
true. Don't get me wrong...Linux is very good, but it does not yet match up
across the board to a veteran like Solaris.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Just knew it
Authored by: cybervegan on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:51 PM EST
It didn't seem like their style - but this new development is.

We had the first hints with the Sun Java Desktop and their hiding of the GPL
license details on the install cd, and their horrendous incomprehensible license
that "may or may not" apply.

Leopards, and their spots, as they say.

Oh well, lets move on...


Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missed opportunity for Sun...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:55 PM EST
I personally think that Sun felt that Linux was taking markey share away from Solaris and that they felt Solaris was the better product. I also guess that they thought the reason for this was because of the popularity of the concept of Open Source.

What I think this is is an attempt to get the "Open Source" stamp of approval on Solaris, so that Linux's advantage here would be insignificant, though at the same time organizing things such thatthey would be the only ones to be able to profit from it.

If that is the case they have not understood the reason why Open Source is popular. It is not about some vague political dogma, it is about not being reliant on any individual entity and about people liking the freedom of being able to use, develop or have developed improvements and alterations without fear of a comeback or undue "tax" from a vendor whom you no longer wish to have a relationship with.

The longer Sun does not understand this, the longer Linux will continue to take market share from Linux.

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:58 PM EST
*lets out breath and emits a deep sigh*
I really thought sun was going to do the right thing :( Oh well, it was a nice


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: micheal on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 03:59 PM EST
This is not much different from what DEC had prior to about 1970. Anybody who
bought a DEC computer and an OS could get the source to the OS and make
improvements. That was one of the major reasons that people bought DEC
computers. This is similar except that it is open to anybody who wants to get a
CDDL license. This will be tempting for many Solaris users and people that want
to try out Solaris at home.

However, anyone who who wants to program for another OS (or even an application
program for another OS) should probably think twice.

It will be interesting to see if SUN can get enough open source developers to
compete with Linux. My feeling is that they won't.


LeRoy -
What a wonderful day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:00 PM EST
I just finished reading Schwartz's blog on rented computing and (yet again)
walked away wishing he could just say something in plain english instead of
trying to re-invent the meanings of words and the significance of events.

Seems to me that IBM's customers are those they can impress and Sun's customers
are those they can deceive. Here they go with another huge press release about
a NEW direction the company is taking. Makes you dizzy.

SCO launched a self-demoting attack on Linux and it made them radioactive in the
IT world. What is Sun THINKING? I don't even care anymore. It will be a
relief when they finally blow through their capital and shut down.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Users ?
Authored by: dcarrera on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST
I don't know what to call Sun.

They are not members of the FOSS community. They don't share our values or

But they are not "users" either. At least not in the sense that
"using" the community or the software is a prime description. They are
not exactly getting a lot from FOSS developers. Well, I guess there is Gnome.
That helps them sell Solaris. But that's it really, as far as I can tell.

But regardless, I find it very frustrating that they play around with words as
much as they do. Their public announcements are just a source of frustration,
and only help to infuriate people. I think they would be much better seen by the
FOSS community if they'd just shut up.

Offering patents and then being found to not have really given anything is much
worse for them than if they just hadn't said anything at all.

Daniel Carrera. volunteer.

Make a difference. Join Join OOoAuthors today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:28 PM EST
    • Answers - Authored by: dcarrera on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:53 PM EST
      • Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:55 AM EST
      • Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST
  • Users ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:45 PM EST
  • Users ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 11:45 PM EST
    • Users ? - Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:46 AM EST
      • Users ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:14 PM EST
Ethics, gardens and groping
Authored by: Mouse on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST
The ethics of the GPL simply elude them. They prefer a Walled Garden approach that they hope will positively impact on their bottom line, if enough folks sign up to help them make some money.

It's Sun's right to take a "walled garden" approach if they think that'll work for them.

Where ethics come into it is when they proclaim to the world, "We're giving patent rights to open source developers!" and it's only when we read the fine print that we find out they meant only OpenSolaris developers. And when people complain they say, "Well, duh, did you really think we were going to give you something?"

That's pretty disgusting, but I don't feel "groped", as you say. I remember how Sun cancelled the public Java standard - twice. I haven't believed any of their PR for years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simple Question?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST
Can I make my own custom Sun Solaris distribution, sell support for it and not
get sued by Sun? Or do they retain the right to sue me for using their patent?

Can I use CDDL Solaris and take Sun out of the equation? Or will I get sued?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw link in the Inquirer
Authored by: kjb on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:41 PM EST
in an article on Sun and the CDDL.
Apologies if this has been posted before . . .

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO - Another reason not to trust
Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:43 PM EST
All this leads back in one way or another to SCO. Linux doesn't (of course, this
will have to be proven in court as it is now.) People are tired of the old Unix
business. But they still love Unix. Linux and BSD testify to that. Bill Gates
knows it.

Linux and Open Source is the separation Technology from the old Politics.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds like immature teens to me...
Authored by: svyerkgeniiy on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:43 PM EST
I have always been of the opinion that, although Sun hates Microsoft with the
strongest antipathy possible, its main goal is to be in exactly the same
position as Microsoft. Kind of like my kid brother who couldn't stand me, but
envied my position so badly it just made him more jealous.

Fortunately, my brother outgrew this-- mostly.

I am sure we can all tsk and shake our heads in unison when absolutely no
community rallies to their grandiose gesture to do the work of developing
Solaris for them.


I left my signature on my other billboard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open letter to Mr. Schwartz
Authored by: akempo on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 04:57 PM EST
Well, follishly I registered for a CDDL and the right to download Solaris 10. I
did not get to download them, due to time constraints on my end. Since Sun is
only opening their patents to CDDL licensees, I went to Sun's website and filled
out a comment that goes like this:

Considering your announcement that the 1600+ patents are only open to
OpenSolaris developers, I hereby voluntarily surrender my license to Solaris 10.
I certify that I have not completed a download of any binaries or source code
related to Solaris 10.
If Sun at some point reconsiders opening its patents to ALL FOSS developers, I
would be happy to evaluate Solaris against whatever Linux distro I will be
running at that time. Until then, I will not pollute my FOSS machine with a
non-FOSS product from a company that claims to be FOSS friendly but isn't.


I may be only one person, but I'm guessing if they here this enough, it might
make a difference someday.


Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, small minds talk
about each other. Eleanor Roosevelt

2b | !2b = question

[ Reply to This | # ]

I had this feeling....
Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:03 PM EST
I had this feeling from the beginning that Sun would either (or all of the

a) Slip something into "Cuddle" to prevent Solaris from easily being
forked out from Sun's control

b) Somehow prevent ideas (not actual code) from being reimplemented in Linux,
BSD, etc.

c) Keep any contributions for themselves and set up a legal minefield for anyone
else wishing to profit from Solaris.

Well, B and C have been done through the use of software patents and
unfullfilled promises (Sun opens up 1600 software patents for use in open source
software...yeah right!!!).

Well, all I have to say is, the only developers that are going to be helping
Solaris (most likely) are Solaris admins who need a bug fixed that Sun won't
look at. Sun's hopes of an Open Solaris community that would further the advance
of Solaris technology for the good of everyone are long gone, thanks to the
coices they have made...and it serves them right. Why would another company give
code to Sun so that Sun could sue them for patent infringement for
redistributing Solaris. Well, that's what I get from it, as from my
understanding, the patent grant only stands if Sun is the entity distributing
Solaris, not if another company does so.

If software patents are abolished (unlikely in the US it seems, Europe is more
hopeful) I hope someone grabs Solaris and runs with it (forks it). It would
serve Sun right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:07 PM EST
I have a question.

Since cuddles has been blessed as open source, can it be
"unblessed"? I'd like to see that happen because IMO it does not
fall in that category.

Again IMO, THE ONLY reason Sun bothered to do that was to whip up
a bunch of press and the community.

Sun backfires more than my old Chevy Vega with the timing
advanced, running on bad gas and going up hill.

You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The future ,,,
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:20 PM EST
In the future, there will be two types of software: open source (Linux &
BSD), and Microsoft Windows.

Proprietary Unix is going the way of the dodo (aka Digital Equipment). DEC True
Unix is dead, Santa Cruz Operations Unix is dead. IBM has recognized this, but
Sun refuses to.

Solaris is like a fish out of water: belly-flopping and making a lot of noise
but, ultimately, its fate is sealed.

What Sun fails to grasp is that it just doesn't make sense to pay for Unix
licenses when there are free alternatives available, or to use
"open"Solaris with its vendor lock-in.

It's no secret that, since the bust (remember Sun put the dot in the and an era of tight IT budgets, corporations have been abandoning
solutions that result in lock-in. Even Microsoft has felt the brunt of this, as
corporations increasingly refuse to participate in MS upgrade programs, which
really only generate revenue for MS and offer few needed enhancements for
business. Look at how many corporations still use Windows 2000 and Office 97 and

Microsoft just last week reported record profits. But the profits were made on
the Xbox and video games. Their upgrade cycle has fallen flat, which is why they
also last week killed future service packs for Windows 2000, and announced that
"Windows Update" will be available only for "genuine" copies
of Windows. Both these measures are designed to force upgrades to Windows XP,
with its licensing lock-in through "Windows Activation".

Me? I'm busy eliminating Windows from my business in favor of Linux and FreeBSD.
Who needs these hassles?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Schwartz interview
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:51 PM EST
Maybe this is why Schwartz keeps putting off answering that list of Groklaw
questions. He knows we are angry at and are just going to get angrier.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Idiot of historic proportions
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 05:57 PM EST

Schwartz mocks IBM's patent pledge, says that the GPL segment of the FOSS community is only one segment of it and there is a huge Open Source community outside of the GPL area, implying clearly that the nonGPL segment is all they are about.

The man is an idiot, there is no doubt about that at all. For crying out loud, is licensed under LGPL, meaning you can take its code and release it under the GPL (see term 3 in LGPL). So, Sun are part of that GPL community and they also claim their open source contribution is the biggest of all commercial entities, much of which can be attributed to OOo.

What's wrong with these people at Sun? Have they lost their minds?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Whats the beef? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 08:01 PM EST
Why not dual license?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 06:33 PM EST
CPPL and GPL, seems to be working for Mozilla.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This license is no different than M$oft's Research SSL
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 06:35 PM EST

So what's the difference between the CDDL and M$'s Research Shared Source
License? You can develop and do anything you want, AS LONG AS you give M$oft
unlimited rights over your code. They still reserve the right to sue you for
anything they disclosed to you though.

Argh. Evil Sun. You have freedom to do anything *as long as* you give it back to
Sun. Compare with GPL - you have freedom to do anything as long as you give it
back to community at large, but *only* if you distribute the code as a whole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: tredman on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 07:35 PM EST
I was hoping for a happy ending, but this really isn't that much of a suprise.
Anybody who's familiar with the licensing circus that is Java has seen all this


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun to be the next SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 08:08 PM EST
After getting paid off to the tune of 2 billion dollars by MS, Sun got in line
behind SCO to be the next "Menacing Threat(TM)" against open source

Ohhhhh... Paaaatteeennnttsss... Beeeeee Scaaaarrrreeeedddd weeeeee wiiiiiilll
suuueeeee yoooouuuuu!

I am not going to look at a single line of code protected under the sun all your
stuff belongs to us license. I recommend the rest of you do the same.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun is more cunning that you realise
Authored by: DFJA on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 08:11 PM EST
I think most of the responses here have missed one very
important point. Through this controversy, Sun have
managed to elevate the role of patents (as opposed to
Copyright) in people's minds. The CDDL is a copyright
licence, and a Free one (although incompatible with the
most popular Free Software licence, the GPL). It says
nothing about patents. Sun's cynical posturing about
patents has essentially done nothing except issue a veiled
threat that they will use these 1600 patents against all
Free Software that isn't CDDL. They must have known that
the Free Software community would question this in great
detail - as PJ has done, and thankyou for that - but
they've got us all to think in terms of patents, which I
think was their plan all along.

So - don't buy it, it's cynical and deceiving on the part
of Sun. Now that software patents are off the immediate
horizon in Europe, we should get back to thinking about
software in terms of Copyright, as was the case in the USA
before the 1990s.

Don't let Sun get away with this deceit!!!

43 - for those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe
and everything

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fool me twice...
Authored by: allthingscode on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 08:52 PM EST
It does seem to me that most of you, including PJ, are angry because Sun fooled
you again. As Batman said to Superman: Get over it.

What do you do when a personal acquaintance makes a fool of you? You drop them,
and move on with your life. It's time to do the same to Sun. Until certain
people are no longer in charge, Sun will always act the same. You know that
Scott's gestures toward the open source community have some hidden agenda, so
it's time to stop listening to them.

We can't expect everyone to be as pure of heart as the open source community,
but we all should be old enough for it to not be a surprise. We all have better
things to do with our energy than yell at Sun and Microsoft all the time.
Things like making better software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I miss the good old days when companies competed for my business
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 10:47 PM EST
Work was much simpler, more predictable, and more efficient when companies actually tried to win my business by offering better products and value.

Realistically, these old companies need FOSS more than FOSS needs them.

As for the customers of these companies, watch how FOSS reacts to them before buying their expensive systems. There are viable alternatives like grid computing. FOSS supplies some of the secret SW sauce for all computer companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, it's their cash....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2005 @ 10:53 PM EST
but my cash is mine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: kamauo on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:01 AM EST
Sun is working with Micro$oft to derail GNU/Linux and the GPL. It should be
obvious to everyone that Sun's secret mission is to kill FOSS for Micro$oft,

No one in the FOSS/GPL crew of developers who are in their right minds will even
look at any of the code for Solaris much less develop anything for Solaris.

Sun is rather rude because they think that the developers who develop Linux and
FOSS/GPL will be foolish enough and develop under the CDDL, which is 100% anti

Mark my words; Sun will continue to die a slow and painful death and Micro$oft
will begin its very slow and very painful death 9 months from today. It will
take nine years for Micro$oft to be discredited and abandoned by most of its

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't hate Sun, but I won't look at their code.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:26 AM EST
Why should we expect Sun to offer any support to the OSS community? That is not
what Sun is for. It is obvious that Sun doesn't realy want us to use their

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun should be unplugged
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:55 AM EST
What good were there in Sun in the first place, despite they were even better
than MS in stealing peoples money legally (you know if you have purchased their
products). Now they will be stealing peoples code with CDDL, because they donīt
have money and competence to do it by self.
My humble opinion is that great effort of OSS-community should be put in
development of Blackdown java, Kaffe and OpenOffice in order to rewrite Sun's
code and unplug forever this bloodsucking MS friendly company from OSS.
In the end Sunīs real goal is to destroy REAL OSS and win their vanishing market
share back.

This sun isnīt shining for me !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:45 AM EST
Nothing fancy. Nothing new under the Sun. :-)

It's about the same they did five years ago with Solaris 8 source code. (BTW,
how comes, SCO is not after them for that?).

With Solaris 8 they opened the source to anybody... with the condition that you
would only use it to improve on Solaris 8 and not use it for anything else.

Basically the same thing.

And what happened them will happen again: many people will have a look (out of
various interests -curiosity, need, eagerness..-) but giving back will code will
be a pain, since you lose your rights to Sun (iff you are lucky they take your

I've always wondered why so many device drivers written independently for
Solaris 8 never made it back into the code and had to be sought after from their
developers' site. And why so many people was doing interesting things tat would
not find their way back to Solaris 8.

Well, just look at the BSD's split for tightly controlled centralised
development.. and they are way more open than the CDDL.

I guess the same will happen: they will grow a disconnected community of
professionals (doing closed inhouse work), hobbyists and curious people, but
actual participation won't be that great.

Jose R. Valverde

[ Reply to This | # ]

Incidentally, the GPL arguably doesn't meet the OSI requirements
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:43 AM EST

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

If the 'original software' is (e.g.) BSD licensed, and is then assimilated into a GPL project, applying the GPL licence prevents the derived work from being 'distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software'.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: IharFilipau on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:48 AM EST
BSD people never accepted GPL because it imposes too much restrictions - it
prevents commercialization.

If in deep in your soul you like in future build commercial product BSD is for
you. That's why they are centrilized so much - core do not want to give a chance
to forkers to flourish outside of project, potentially in future creating more
succesful commercial product.

That's one side.

On another side, there are people who truly beleive in freedom. Total freedom.
And they feel that GPL still puts restrictions. Whatever they are - they are
still basicly restrictions. So they use BSD license.

I do not need to explain GPL people - community leaders have spoken many times,
and spoken better than I can even reiterate.

Here comes CDDL. And Sun's CE[OT.]s claim that with CDDL thay are after
"other" (presumambly non-GPL) part of F/LOSS.

From what I have said in begining it must be clear that BSD people might accept
some tiny worthful parts of Solaris 10 - just like they do with GPLed software -
with long term goal to rewrite it under BSD license. But not more.

BSD people will not be attracted by CDDL. They already choosen BSD license in
first place after all. They are after total freedom - for whatever reason they
do this. They do this for more than 30 years - from times of Unix inception.

So we have to drom drop from this "other F/LOSS" both GPL and BSD. And
what are left with? Zilch. Null. Void.

Seems like Solaris10 will be recalled as another Sun's PR spin. Probably
greatest to date, but still just nice PR flash/spin.

It looks like nice "patent trap." You have signed-up to Solaris 10
CDDL. If you stop using it, and start developing another products - you are in
odds. Now you might be sued for patent infrigement, if your OSS seems to have
some resemblance of code in Solaris 10 and this piece of code happened to be
covered by patent. Dumb.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 06:14 AM EST

What's the fuss?
Sun Microsystem is a corporation whose goal is to make money. They think that by
creating this CDDL, they will attract some talent to work on Solaris for free
while maintaining full control on the system. Well, this has worked quite well
with Java already, why wouldn't they try another time?

Also, it is not because an organisation says this is "open source"
that you have to knee in front of it. Use your eyes and ears but most
importantly use what should be between them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Then pay me
Authored by: tomg_66 on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:45 AM EST
If any improvements that I make to 'Open Solaris' belong to Sun, they they
should pay me like they do any other employee. They should treat it like a work
for hire, since they are the only one able to get economic benifit for my

Tom Green

no, not -that- Tom Green

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:00 PM EST
A couple of points:

Schwartz's criticisms of IBM's patent grant are at least partly valid. So far,
I've not seen much discussion of what those patents actually cover, their
current status, etc. A more important point is whether all patents that IBM
holds that are relevant to linux are or will be included.

Both Sun and IBM seem use GPL licensing to undermine dominant competitors. I.e.
OpenOffice vs. Office and Linux v.s. Windows and Solaris, respectively. Sun
cannot GPL Solaris without losing what they see as their comparative advantage,
so they did the next best thing by creating a GPL-incompatible license that
achieves essentially the same goals. This seems an entirely reasonable strategy
for the underdog. All things being equal - which they never are - CDDL is
arguably a better license than GPL. The level of paranoia expressed here and
elsewhere is a bit over the top.

Disclosure I own modest amounts of stock in both Sun and IBM, but do not work in
the computer tech industry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Schwartz on Open Source
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:19 PM EST
"For us, open source is capitalism and business opportunity at its very
best" [eWeek, Jan 24, p18, 2005].

Yeah, that's my definition of "open source" too ...

...and some folks here seem surprised at their CDDL shenannigans.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open letter to SUN
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 04 2005 @ 01:22 AM EST
Thanks, SUN.

I used to think you supported OSS. That WAS your beginnings. However, you are
now focused on IP only. I've loved your server hardware and OS, but your recent
actions only make you a M$ clone. I guess we now have sir Bill and sir McNealy.
I thought you were better than this. I guess in my company you will now loose to
IBM and Linux, who are more friendly to "us". Thanks for the
"effort" as weak as it may have been. Thanks also for all your years
of a good OS. I doubt I will ever recommend you again for purchase. There are
better alternatives out there than you.

Take care.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seven Million Lines of GPL Code!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 04 2005 @ 06:11 PM EST
It's called OpenOffice. Sun has released code under the GPL. You are being
willfully blind. Suddenly open source went from begin all about the code to
being all about the patents. Talk about moving the goalposts. What about the

Do you trust IBM, a member of Patents4Innovation?

Don't like CDDL? Where is your outrage over MPL? It is almost the same

So now open source, which was about copyrights, is all about patents. So where
does that put Stallman and GPL3? Is Stallman selling out?

When a company releases its crown jewel software under an OSI approved license,
those who criticize it lose their credibility and moral high ground. You are
basically simultaneously saying open source is good, but more open source is
bad. And like it or not, Solaris is open source.

You are starting to sound like the pigs in George Orwell's classic, Animal Farm
(" ... some animals are more equal than others"). The simple fact is,
if Sun released every line of software it ever developed under the GPL, you
would find some other criticism of them. Just admit it, it is personal, you
don't like Sun and you will find anything to criticize them on, regardless of
their actions.

If you don't trust Sun, logically you cannot trust Red Hat. If you do not trust
Sun, logically you cannot trust IBM. Unless your lack of trust is based on
personal ideas, tastes, or predjudices, which are not logical. If it is the
latter, it is just Coke versus Pepsi, a choice based on personal tastes, nothing

So here is my suggestion. If you really feel so strongly about Sun, don't use
Open Office. Don't use Apache (which Sun contributed greatly to). Don't use
GNOME (which Sun contributed greatly to). Don't use Mozilla (which Sun
contributed greatly to). Don't use the internationalized version of the X
window system (which Sun contributed greatly to).

You people need to stop hating. Solaris will be open source. If you don't like
the fact that there are open souce licenses other than the GPL, then stop using
the term open source, and start using the term GPL. Oh, but if you do, you have
to give Sun all the credit on OpenOffice now, don't you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Schwartz and McNealy: Patent Pledge Only for CDDL Licensees
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 04 2005 @ 06:16 PM EST
Hey, I was just looking at the Mozilla Public License over at, and
it looks a lot like the CDDL!

I think it is a conspiracy! Netscape screwed us with their crappy license. You
know what? Jim Barksdale, the CEO of Netscape when they released the Mozilla
code is now on the board of directors of Sun! I bet he was behind the CDDL!

We need to put the heat on Mozilla. They're as bad as Sun!

I'm using Konqueror from now on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )