[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
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 ;-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-13 16:33    [W:0.561 / U:15.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site