Solaris 10

[bim27142]

ok, so i've read that this is gonna be released free... but is this any better than windows? will it be compatible in that case to current windows programs especially games...

i kinda like the idea that it's gonna be free Sun somehow claims "ten reasons to move"....

 

[drag]

Solaris is traditional hardcore enterprise stuff. Unix big-iron operating systems.
When in movies people go "Oh, this is Unix, I know this!", Solaris is what they are talking about.

It's not going to be usefull as a Windows replacement desktop. Your games are less likely to work on it then they do in Linux.

 

[bim27142]

oh ok, i thought this is the one that's gonna solve windows piracy....

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: drag
Solaris is traditional hardcore enterprise stuff. Unix big-iron operating systems.
When in movies people go "Oh, this is Unix, I know this!", Solaris is what they are talking about.

It's not going to be usefull as a Windows replacement desktop. Your games are less likely to work on it then they do in Linux.

Actually in Jurassic Park, that was IRIX

Anyway, I like Solaris(probably the only one around here who does ), but no, it's not Windows in any way shape or form.

 

[drag]

Dammit, I new is was a -ix-sh or is-sh sounding operating system.

I have no opinion with Solaris. Never used it before...

I like that they are choosing OSI-capatable license so far. The only thing that makes it non-GPL compatable is the patent stuff.. Should be compatable with the next version of the GPL though.

Looks like F/OSS is winning.

Sun figured out: "If you can't beat them, join them.". (It would be nice for the Mesa/DRI guys to get their hands on that OpenGL magic from IRIX, now that I think about it...)

Kinda makes SCO's fight with IBM pointless, doesn't it? I wonder how much of system-v-style code is being released with this ordeal.

Now soon Sun should beat out IBM as the largest single contributor to OSS software, I guess.

BTW http://www.opensolaris.org is open for business, as if you didn't already know.

So far Dtrace is aviable for Free.

 

[n0cmonkey]

SUN's license may be open, but it's far from free. :roll:

 

[drag]

By your definition.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
By your definition.

Not at all. Based primarily on the definition of "free."

We'll ignore the fact that I can't find a human readable version (lawyers only I guess), and the fact it is closer to the GPL than it is to free. Here's a nasty tidbit that is anti-free:

6.2. If You assert a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Initial Developer
or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You assert such claim is referred to as
?Participant?) alleging that the Participant Software (meaning the Contributor Version where the Participant
is a Contributor or the Original Software where the Participant is the Initial Developer) directly or
indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted directly or indirectly to You by such Participant,
the Initial Developer (if the Initial Developer is not the Participant) and all Contributors under Sections 2.1
and/or 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate prospectively and automatically
at the expiration of such 60 day notice period, unless if within such 60 day period You withdraw Your claim with
respect to the Participant Software against such Participant either unilaterally or pursuant to a written agreement
with Participant.

6.3. If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that the Participant Software directly
or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the
initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant
under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license.

 

[drag]

So if you sue Solaris users for using Solaris, or developers (like Sun) for developing Solaris because Solaris violates a patent of yours, you loose the right to distribute and use Solaris yourself.

If your using the law to attempt strip away the rights of others, you strip your own rights too.

Sounds ok to me.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
So if you sue Solaris users for using Solaris, or developers for developing Solaris because Solaris violates a patent of yours, you loose the right to distribute and use Solaris yourself.

If your using the law to attempt strip away the rights of others, you strip your own rights too.

Sounds ok to me.

I lose rights to something because they infringed on my property. No, doesn't quite sound fair or free.

 

[drag]

What rights are you talking about? If you own a patent you can still sue.

Why would a person want to do something like that, sue people for using free software and then still want to use the free software themselves?

Or do you find it acceptable that a person could seize control of BSD code, strip away the ability of the developers to work on it and users to use on it because it violates a handfull of patents, but then still be able to turn around and sell BSD to other companies?

The whole idea of software patents is abhorant. And this is the sort of thing that Sun thinks is nessicary for them to protect themsevles legally when they release code.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
What rights are you talking about? If you own a patent you can still sue.

Why would a person want to do something like that, sue people for using free software and then still want to use the free software themselves?

They aren't sueing them for using free software, they're suing for violation of intellectual property. The owner of that intellectual property would be the only ones with the right to use it (without proper licenses of course).

Or do you find it acceptable that a person could seize control of BSD code, strip away the ability of the developers to work on it and users to use on it because it violates a handfull of patents, but then still be able to turn around and sell BSD to other companies?

The BSD license would allow something like that. The developers, having been informed of infringement, would find a way around it. OpenBSD developers seem to be interested in avoiding patent issues (and remaining free, unlike the peeks we've had of the GPL3). CARP is a perfect example.

The whole idea of software patents is abhorant. And this is the sort of thing that Sun thinks is nessicary for them to protect themsevles legally when they release code.

That's besides the point. Having those clauses in the license further restricts use. Restrictions = not free.

 

[Nothinman]

will it be compatible in that case to current windows programs especially games...

WINE probably runs on the x86 version of Solaris, so the answer is "probably to an extent". But it would defeat the purpose of running another OS if you just run all of the same apps from the old OS in a compatibility layer.

 

[drag]

The BSD license would allow something like that. The developers, having been informed of infringement, would find a way around it. OpenBSD developers seem to be interested in avoiding patent issues (and remaining free, unlike the peeks we've had of the GPL3). CARP is a perfect example.

You have a VERY ideolized veiwpoint on your liability to patents. Right now I can garrentee you that the BSD operating systems are violating dozens, if not hundreds of patents.

It is impossible for a software developer to make software that is not liable to software patents.

Becuase you do not know a patent exists does not provide legal protection.
Because you try to avoid patents and do patent searches doesn't not provide legal protection.
because even if you rewrite your software as soon as you find out your violating a patent, it does not provide legal protection.

If bsd code is found to be violating a patent and a judge orders a injuction against distributing, say, OpenBSD until the software is rewritten AND/OR the OpenBSD developers pay the patent holder licensing costs for the time period that they have been found violating that patent and I am using BSD code in my own software, I now have to rewrite my own software AND probably pay licensing costs for using OpenBSD code.

That's right. You are liable NOW for licensing costs for using OpenBSD. It's that nice?

You say that Sun's license would violate your "intellectual property rights". Well the term "intellectual property rights" is a misnomer. There is no such thing.

You have Trademarks. You have copyrights. You have patents.

3 completely different things, for implimented in 3 different ways for 3 different purposes.

What you are realy saying is that Sun licenses violates your rights to sue people for usng CDDL software AND continue to enjoy using Sun software. That's it. There is no violation of "intellectual property rights" because there is no such thing in the first place. You have no right to a idea any more then I have a right to a ray of sunshine. Patents provide a temporary monopoly, a temporary governmental-enforced privilage to take people to court to violate their rights in order to seek your own financial gain.

Now this can be a GOOD thing for a veriaty of reasons. Namely:
1. It fosters a economic incentive and reward system for being creative.
2. eliminates the desire for "trade secrets" because you have to publish the details of your idea into the public domain.

However, unfortunately, software patents accomplish neither and actually do the oppisite. They create a economic disincentive to be creative and encourage people to horde "trade secrets" in order to avoid being sued.

This is because a developer CANNOT avoid violating patents. You can reduce this chance by hiring lawyers and continiously doing patent searches on ever line of code that you rights, but that won't solve all your problems. Rewriting software will not absolve you of licensing costs or liability. Writing software to specificly avoid one patent will not protect you from another patent, or from violating the patent your trying to avoid by writing something that is completely different. Rewriting software to avoid violating patents will not absolve your users of liability either. It will not protect other developers that use your code either.

If a court awards a injunction against OpenBSD distributing their code, that also can apply to Microsoft's Unix compatably stuff too since it uses OpenBSD code. If openBSD has to rewrite part of their software, then MS would have to do the same if they are using that peice of software from OpenBSD.

What this Sun license does is a LIBERATION, not a restriction. It grants MORE rights to the user then what is possible from the BSD license.

With the CDDL and BSD license I am still liable to be sued by patent holder if I use BSD code or CDDL code. However with CDDL I at least am able to sue them back if they use my own software that I have written. Can't do that with the BSD.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

The BSD license would allow something like that. The developers, having been informed of infringement, would find a way around it. OpenBSD developers seem to be interested in avoiding patent issues (and remaining free, unlike the peeks we've had of the GPL3). CARP is a perfect example.

You have a VERY ideolized veiwpoint on your liability to patents. Right now I can garrentee you that the BSD operating systems are violating dozens, if not hundreds of patents.

It is impossible for a software developer to make software that is not liable to software patents.

Becuase you do not know a patent exists does not provide legal protection.
Because you try to avoid patents and do patent searches doesn't not provide legal protection.
because even if you rewrite your software as soon as you find out your violating a patent, it does not provide legal protection.

If bsd code is found to be violating a patent and a judge orders a injuction against distributing, say, OpenBSD until the software is rewritten AND/OR the OpenBSD developers pay the patent holder licensing costs for the time period that they have been found violating that patent and I am using BSD code in my own software, I now have to rewrite my own software AND probably pay licensing costs for using OpenBSD code.

That's right. You are liable NOW for licensing costs for using OpenBSD. It's that nice?

You say that Sun's license would violate your "intellectual property rights". Well the term "intellectual property rights" is a misnomer. There is no such thing.

You have Trademarks. You have copyrights. You have patents.

3 completely different things, for implimented in 3 different ways for 3 different purposes.

What you are realy saying is that Sun licenses violates your rights to sue people for usng CDDL software AND continue to enjoy using Sun software. That's it. There is no violation of "intellectual property rights" because there is no such thing in the first place. You have no right to a idea any more then I have a right to a ray of sunshine. Patents provide a temporary monopoly, a temporary governmental-enforced privilage to take people to court to violate their rights in order to seek your own financial gain.

Now this can be a GOOD thing for a veriaty of reasons. Namely:
1. It fosters a economic incentive and reward system for being creative.
2. eliminates the desire for "trade secrets" because you have to publish the details of your idea into the public domain.

However, unfortunately, software patents accomplish neither and actually do the oppisite. They create a economic disincentive to be creative and encourage people to horde "trade secrets" in order to avoid being sued.

This is because a developer CANNOT avoid violating patents. You can reduce this chance by hiring lawyers and continiously doing patent searches on ever line of code that you rights, but that won't solve all your problems. Rewriting software will not absolve you of licensing costs or liability. Writing software to specificly avoid one patent will not protect you from another patent, or from violating the patent your trying to avoid by writing something that is completely different. Rewriting software to avoid violating patents will not absolve your users of liability either. It will not protect other developers that use your code either.

If a court awards a injunction against OpenBSD distributing their code, that also can apply to Microsoft's Unix compatably stuff too since it uses OpenBSD code. If openBSD has to rewrite part of their software, then MS would have to do the same if they are using that peice of software from OpenBSD.

What this Sun license does is a LIBERATION, not a restriction. It grants MORE rights to the user then what is possible from the BSD license.

With the CDDL and BSD license I am still liable to be sued by patent holder if I use BSD code or CDDL code. However with CDDL I at least am able to sue them back if they use my own software that I have written. Can't do that with the BSD.

Copyright is an intellectual property. The BSD license and the GPL kind of revolve around it. The parts I quoted are restrictions (that is, if I understand them correctly, I'm not so sure I do ).

There are more restrictions in that license than in the BSD license, it's hardly free.

 

[n0cmonkey]

No matter what you think of it, there's plenty to read.

 

[smc13]

Of course you can own an idea. That is what a patent is on intellectual property is. It says this idea is mine and you can't use it without my permission.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: smc13
Of course you can own an idea. That is what a patent is on intellectual property is. It says this idea is mine and you can't use it without my permission.

I think his point was that software patents are a dumb idea. I agree with him.