Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Tarkan Erimer]

Hi Linus,

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>   
> > Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
> > have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
> > not? ;-)
> >     
>
> Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in 
> this to actually further some open-source agenda.
>
> Here's a cynical prediction (but backed up by past behaviour of Sun):
>
>  - first off: they may be talking a lot more than they are or ever will
>    be doing. How many announcements about Sun and Linux have you seen over
>    the years? And how much of that has actually happened?
>
>  - They may like open source, but Linux _has_ hurt them in the 
>    marketplace. A lot.
>
>    They almost used to own the chip design market, and it took quite a 
>    long time before the big EDA vendors ported to Linux (and x86-64 in 
>    particular). But when they did, their chip design market just basically 
>    disappeared: sparc performance is so horribly bad (especially on a 
>    workstation kind of setup), that to do chip design on them is just 
>    idiotic. Which is not to say that there aren't holdouts, but let's face 
>    it, for a lot of things, Solaris is simply the wrong choice these days.
>
>    Ergo: they sure as hell don't want to help Linux. Which is fine. 
>    Competition is good.
>
>  - So they want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do 
>    *not* want to give anything back (especially ZFS, which seems to be one 
>    of their very very few bright spots).
>
>  - Ergo: they'll not be releasing ZFS and the other things that people are 
>    drooling about in a way that lets Linux use them on an equal footing. I 
>    can pretty much guarantee that. They don't like competition on that 
>    level. They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign 
>    back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris: 
>    who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_).
>
>   
Completely agreed :-)

> End result:
>
>  - they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they 
>    drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get 
>    kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of 
>    really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more 
>    "open source" they can position themselves, the better.
>
>   
Definitely. They already began to pull some people like Ian Murdock. And 
I'm really very disappointed of this move,Ian did. Especially, such a 
person who has very good reputation and high profile in the Linux 
Community. He immediately shut down his company (also leaved 
Linux-Foundation) and joined to sun. After joining, he made statements 
like "How to make Solaris more like Linux ?" etc. Like a 40 years 
employee at Sun. Another interesting thing is the timing of this hiring. 
So, this situation is a good example of it.

>  - They may release the uninteresting parts under some fine license. See 
>    the OpenSolaris stuff - instead of being blinded by the code they _did_ 
>    release under an open source license, ask yourself what they did *not* 
>    end up releasing. Ask yourself why the open source parts are not ready 
>    to bootstrap a competitive system, or why they are released under 
>    licenses that Sun can make sure they control.
>
> So the _last_ thing they want to do is to release the interesting stuff 
> under GPLv2 (quite frankly, I think the only really interesting thing they 
> have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to 
> NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux).
>
> Yes, they finally released Java under GPLv2, and they should be commended 
> for that. But you should also ask yourself why, and why it took so long. 
> Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other Java implementations 
> started being more and more relevant?
>
> Am I cynical? Yes. Do I expect people to act in their own interests? Hell 
> yes! That's how things are _supposed_ to happen. I'm not at all berating 
> Sun, what I'm trying to do here is to wake people up who seem to be living 
> in some dream-world where Sun wants to help people. 
>
> So to Sun, a GPLv3-only release would actually let them look good, and 
> still keep Linux from taking their interesting parts, and would allow them 
> to take at least parts of Linux without giving anything back (ahh, the 
> joys of license fragmentation). 
>
> Of course, they know that. And yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that 
> I'm willing to go to the effort of trying to relicense the kernel. But 
> quite frankly, I can almost guarantee that Sun won't release ZFS under the 
> GPLv3 even if they release other parts. Because if they did, they'd lose 
> the patent protection.
>
> And yes, I'm cynical, and yes, I hope I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'll 
> very happily retract anything cynical I said about Sun. They _have_ done 
> great things, and maybe I'm just too pessimistic about all the history 
> I've seen of Sun with open source.
>
> The _good_ news is that Jonathan Schwartz actually does seem to have made 
> a difference, and I hope to God he is really as serious about 
> open-sourcing things as he says he is. And don't get me wrong: I think a 
> truly open-source GPLv3 Solaris would be a really really _good_ thing, 
> even if it does end up being a one-way street as far as code is concerned!
>
> 			Linus
>   
One more time,agreed ;-)

Regards,

Tarkan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/