<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Techrights &#187; CDDL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techrights.org/category/cddl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techrights.org</link>
	<description>Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:21:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>MySQL&#8217;s Slight Changes to Business Plan After Sun&#8217;s Acquisition (Corrected, Updatedx2)</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/02/27/mysql-limitation-with-sun/</link>
		<comments>http://techrights.org/2008/02/27/mysql-limitation-with-sun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Roy Schestowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CDDL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Database]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free/Libre Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SUN]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/27/mysql-limitation-with-sun/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sun makes some interesting changes and expresses desire to buy more companies]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[<b>Important correction</b>: mind the comments. Changes to the business plan, if any, were made <em>before</em> the acquisition.]</p>
<p><font size="5"><b><a name="top">W</a></b></font>e have recently seen a <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/02/17/opensolaris-no-gnulinux/" title="Why Sun&#8217;s OpenSolaris is No GNU/Linux">good share of criticisms</a> of <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/02/18/linux-sun-civil-war/" title="Sun and Linux Must Not Fight Each Other">Sun Microsystems</a>, but they probably deserve trust (or <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/02/20/linux-foundation-might-censor/" title="Hey Amanda [McPherson], the C in Comments in Not Censorship (Corrected)">the benefit of the doubt</a>) where they have not caused any harm. Here is an interesting new observation which is made by Matt Aslett now that <a href="http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/02/27/sun-limits-mysql-enterprise-unlimited/" title="Sun limits MySQL Enterprise Unlimited">the acquisition of MySQL has been finalised</a>:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/02/27/sun-limits-mysql-enterprise-unlimited/">
<h3>Sun limits MySQL Enterprise Unlimited</h3>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>A little less loudly the company has also confirmed that it has tinkered with the terms of MySQL Enterprise Unlimited, the site-wide agreement introduced in January last year that provided unlimited use of MySQL Enterprise for $40,000, the same price Oracle charges per CPU for Oracle Database Enterprise Edition.</p>
<p>MySQL Enterprise Unlimited is proof of the open source model’s ability to disrupt a market but also effectively places a cap on the revenue MySQL &#8211; and now Sun &#8211; can earn per customer. Or at least it used to. As the small print on Sun’s MySQL product page indicates, while Enterprise Unlimited still allows for adoption on any number of servers, the offer is now only available to companies with 400 employees or less.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Limits are not a nice thing. It&#8217;s a little concerning in light of this other news <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9879251-39.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" title="Sun closes MySQL deal, plans more open-source buys">about Sun&#8217;s plan to acquire more companies</a> (it <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/02/20/xen-microsoft-proxy-fights/" title="Did Microsoft Hijack XenSource Like It Tries to Hijack Yahoo?">recently snatched Innotek, but the acquisition seems benign so far</a>).</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9879251-39.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20"><p>
Sun Microsystems said Tuesday that it has completed its acquisition of open-source database company MySQL for about $1 billion&#8211;and now is turning its attention to other acquisitions.
</p></blockquote>
<p>It does not say if these acquisitions will involve open source or not. And in any event, Microsoft has similar plans, based on what <a href="http://techrights.org/2007/10/08/ballmer-fud-comeback/" title="Ballmer&#8217;s FUD Makes a Comeback (and Microsoft Real &#8216;Open Source&#8217; Plan is Unleashed) (Updated)">Steve Ballmer said back in October</a>.</p>
<p>This is not a case of complaining about Sun, but it is important that we know what business model Sun intends to adopt for MySQL or open source in general (dreadful dual-licensing with CDDL comes to mind).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve asked Simon Phipps (in his blog) to comment on this one. If I receive a response, I&#8217;ll share it here. <a href="#top">█</a></p>
<p><b>Update</b>: to Sun&#8217;s credit, according to the second article, &#8220;MySQL is governed by version 2 of the General Public License (GPL) since 2000, but the company likely will move to GPLv3, Mickos said.&#8221; That is truly a change because about a year ago, Mickos told Matt Aslett that he would stick with GPLv2. Well done, Sun.</p>
<p><b>Update #2</b>: Here is the response to my question to Simon Phipps:</p>
<p>&#8220;<em>I&#8217;m expecting Mårten to adjust all of MySQL&#8217;s business practices now they are part of Sun, without harming any established loyalties (so everyone is saying GNU/Linux is the priority for MySQL for example).</em></p>
<p><em>In this case it seems that they want the &#8220;Unlimited&#8221; plan to be aimed at small (presumably growing) business and are leaving room for a new plan for the sort of enterprises Sun deals with. What&#8217;s the concern? I don&#8217;t see an obvious Free software issue (but then again the coffee hasn&#8217;t cut in yet this morning).</em>&#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://techrights.org/2008/02/27/mysql-limitation-with-sun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Sun&#8217;s OpenSolaris is No GNU/Linux</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/02/17/opensolaris-no-gnulinux/</link>
		<comments>http://techrights.org/2008/02/17/opensolaris-no-gnulinux/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Roy Schestowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CDDL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Database]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free/Libre Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kernel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SUN]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/17/opensolaris-no-gnulinux/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OpenSolaris taketh and giveth, but it's behaving like company while alienating its community]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="5"><b><a name="top">S</a></b></font>un Microsystems has been an exceptionally polite and forthcoming company recently. It managed to be credited for a lot of things and its contribution with software such as OpenOffice.org must not be forgotten. It is irksome, however, when voices from within the company send out some warning signals. Let it be more specific and explicit for a moment.</p>
<p>When Sun acquires Free software projects and their parent companies, people raise many questions, especially with regard to <em>motive</em>. Sun&#8217;s acquisition of MySQL, for instance, may be <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/01/16/samp-stack-manuver/" title="Why Sun&#8217;s Acquisition of MySQL is Bad News to Linux">fine news for Free software, but not for Linux</a>.</p>
<p>Last week, <a href="http://techrights.org/2008/01/10/informationweek-gpl-fud/" title="Information Week Busted for Systematic Anti-Linux Agenda">DisinformationWeek</a> published <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206504258&#038;subSection=Enterprise+Applications" title="Sun Unveils New Strategy Aimed At Web 2.0 Developers">the following article</a>.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206504258&#038;subSection=Enterprise+Applications"><p>
CEO Schwartz says that the Solaris, Java, virtualization, MySQL combo is best for development. </p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>MySQL brings another key set of developers, the users of the integrated open source LAMP stack, he said. LAMP stands for Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP or  Perl. The &#8220;L&#8221; doesn&#8217;t have to be taken literally, he added. Sun can and will substitute Solaris for Linux in the stack.
</p></blockquote>
<p>You can hopefully see where it is heading. MySQL might, after all, not only be a route for entering customers&#8217; turf and selling hardware to them. With Solaris, Sun has greater control. </p>
<p>Those protective of Sun would speak about OpenSolaris and the companies&#8217; general openness (CDDL critique aside). But in the past few days <em>alone</em> there were two incidents reported, in addition to others which we can find and post here given some further (re)search:</p>
<p>From the 14<sup><u>th</u></sup> of <a href="http://www.ratliff.net/blog/index.php/2008/02/14/not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/" title="Not with a bang, but a whimper">this month</a>:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.ratliff.net/blog/index.php/2008/02/14/not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/"><p>
Roy Fielding[1] finally quit the OpenSolaris community today, see his resignation letter[2]. The kettle finally boiled over and the realization  come to many (but not all) that Sun is publishing their Solaris code for  marketing purposes, rather than creating an independent, community-led, open source project with the ability to make real decisions.
</p></blockquote>
<p>This one is also very recent: <a href="http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=898" title="Sun Confirms Inflexability &#038; Community Disregard">Sun Confirms Inflexability &#038; Community Disregard</a></p>
<blockquote cite="http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=898"><p>
On Monday OGB Chairman Rich Teer posted Sun&#8217;s answer (crafted by Mr Bill Franklin with the assistance of Mr. Simon Phipps) to the OGB&#8217;s request for clarification regarding the highly controversial decision to name Project Indiana &#8220;OpenSolaris&#8221;. The issue is highly mixed, on one hand you have Sun Microsystems looking for a way to monetize OpenSolaris, on the other hand they are redefining the term &#8220;OpenSolaris&#8221;, around which everything is based, without a single regard for the community.
</p></blockquote>
<p>It would be hasty to any draw comparisons to Microsoft&#8217;s Port 25 here, because Microsoft does not touch GPL (not directly anyway. For that it has <a href="http://techrights.org/2007/09/10/novell-xensource-hijack/" title="Choosing Novell for Your Business is Like Choosing XenSoft (sic)">proxies like Citrix</a>). Going further back to the end of November 2007 there is <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/112907-sun-opends.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news" title="Sun bullied, used threats to gain control of open source project, former owner says">the following memorable story</a>:</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/112907-sun-opends.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news">
<h3>Sun bullied, used threats to gain control of open source project, former owner says</h3>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>Sun used strong-arm tactics and made threats to the owners of an open-source directory project to wrestle away control, according to one of the former owners and creators of the project.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Sun later defended its stance and told its own side of the story. A bad taste in some people&#8217;s mouths remained nonetheless. Early in the year Andy Morton said explicitly that there would be no merge with OpenSolaris. There was also great <a href="http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066" title="Linux: ZFS, Licenses and Patents">resistance to ZFS</a>, which <a href="http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/">Oracle&#8217;s btrfs</a> might render unnecessary anyway.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066"><p>
A recent discussion on the lkml examined the possibility of a Linux implementation of Sun&#8217;s ZFS. It was pointed out that the file system is released under the GPL-incompatible CDDL, and that Sun has filed numerous patents to prevent ZFS from being reverse engineered.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Mind the mentioning of software patents again. We mentioned this when Sun announced its acquisition of MySQL. Lastly, here is <a href="http://jetteroheller.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/save-a-penguin-unplug-a-linux-server-may-win-most-flamable-e-mail-award/" title="'Save a Penguin, Unplug a Linux Server' May Win Most-Flamable E-Mail Award">another memorable incident</a>.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://jetteroheller.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/save-a-penguin-unplug-a-linux-server-may-win-most-flamable-e-mail-award/">
<h3>Save a Penguin, Unplug a Linux Server&#8217; May Win Most-Flamable E-Mail Award</h3>
<p>I just got an e-mail from Sun which is probably the largest violation of L. Ron Hubbard&#8217;s Survey tech that I&#8217;ve ever seen. It was an e-mail with the title of, &#8220;Save a Penguin &#8211; Unplug a Linux Server Today&#8221;.
</p></blockquote>
<p>This post is far from being anti-Sun. Some of Sun&#8217;s fine software products were advocated here before simply because they are appreciated. But there remains this possibility that egocentricity (not anything too sinister) is playing a considerable role, so it&#8217;s something to be aware of and cautious about. <a href="#top">█</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://techrights.org/2008/02/17/opensolaris-no-gnulinux/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sun Sticks to CDDL&#8217;d OpenSolaris (For Now)</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2007/07/01/cddl-opensolaris/</link>
		<comments>http://techrights.org/2007/07/01/cddl-opensolaris/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Roy Schestowitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CDDL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SUN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNIX]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/01/cddl-opensolaris/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sun starts talking about software licences again]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Sun-GPL saga continues. As you may recall, Sun <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/02/24/another-step-towards-gnusolaris/" title="Another Step Towards GNU/Solaris?">has some interest in GPLv3 as a competitive differentiator</a> and its choice of a licence <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/13/gplv3-dual-kernel/" title="Is GPLv3 Becoming an Distant-yet-inevitable Destination for Linux?">could also affect the licence of the Linux kernel</a>. Yesterday, Dana Gardner came out with <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2489" title="Sun demurs from adopting GPL v3 for OpenSolaris, keeps CDDL only">a word on Sun&#8217;s latest stance on licences</a>. </p>
<blockquote cite="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2489"><p>
<b>Sun demurs from adopting GPL v3 for OpenSolaris, keeps CDDL only</b></p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>On the other hand, there may be highly positive long-term effects that protect users, build bridges to the Apache community, close patent infringement loopholes (you know what I mean), and that bring more low-risk open source use to more organizations (and spur them on as contributors) in a mission critical sense. Sun should be for that, no? But here’s where they are at…
</p></blockquote>
<p>Dana quotes some relevant new E-mails that shed more light. The day before that, PCWorld published <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133619-c,opensource/article.html" title="Sun CEO Mum on GPLv3, Reveals Licensing Hopes">another article on the matter</a>, but it remained quite inconclusive.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133619-c,opensource/article.html"><p>
<b>Sun CEO Mum on GPLv3, Reveals Licensing Hopes</b></p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>Then he added, &#8220;One of my great fantasies in life is that the number of people with opinions on open source licenses will come roughly into balance with the number of people who have read them.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>It will very interesting to see where (and when) Sun adopts GPLv3.</p>
<p><b>Related old articles</b>:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/devt/1BADF7624C780F9ACC2572D8000377F1" title="Sun set to open source Java products">Sun set to open source Java products</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/09/McNealy-says-Sun-evaluating-OpenSolaris-on-GPL_1.html" title="McNealy says Sun evaluating OpenSolaris on GPL">McNealy says Sun evaluating OpenSolaris on GPL</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62011784,00.htm" title="Sun hopes for Linux-like Solaris">Sun hopes for Linux-like Solaris</a></li>
<li><a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/04/sun_ceo_proprie.html" title="Sun CEO: 'Proprietary'...did more damage to sun than any market downturn">Sun CEO: &#8216;Proprietary&#8217;&#8230;did more damage to sun than any market downturn</a></li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://techrights.org/2007/07/01/cddl-opensolaris/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

