Some day Stallman may be saying it's GNU/Solaris

[greggh]

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6157761.html

"Sun has now asked for our thoughts on moving the Solaris operating system to GPLv3 and what they would need to do to engage the free software developer community. Specifically, they see the advantages of creating a GNU system, utilizing the kernel of Solaris," FSF Executive Director Peter Brown said in an interview.

GNU and Solaris
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the FSF's attempt to create a nonproprietary clone of Unix. Right now, that effort is based on the Linux kernel. But Solaris is another possibility for the core part of the GNU operating system.

"A distribution of GNU utilizing the kernel of Solaris would certainly receive at least as much support (from the FSF) as GNU with the kernel Linux," Brown said. "The fact that Sun are considering using GPLv3 would be of particular interest to us."

We'll see if Linus changes his mind about GPLv3. If he doesn't there will be alot of core GNU tools and programs that will no longer be able to be used with Linux. Will the future be GNU/Solaris?

[Wally Balljacker]

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license? Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

[greggh]

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license? Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

It's possible. What you get is another Linux, a GPLv3 one. Linux has already moved from GPLv1 to GPLv2. Developers have a choice which Licensed version they want to develop for.

[greggh]

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

It should be called GIS (GIS Is Solaris)

[chuck]

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license? Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

It's possible. What you get is another Linux, a GPLv3 one. Linux has already moved from GPLv1 to GPLv2. Developers have a choice which Licensed version they want to develop for.

I think that the Kernel has always used GPLv2 since Kernel 1.0 and there was a license applied to it, if memory serves. Even so, if there was a GPLv1 applied to the kernel during early development it would have been easier to get the fewer number of developers at that point to agree to move to GPLv2 due to the minimal amount of changes from GPLv1.

GPLv3 has such drastic changes that many people are not going to move to it due to the added restrictions. Freedoms should be applied to all in an equal way, if there is a profit motive or not when receiving that freedom. Yes, a new Linux like kernel could be created, but it would have to be done practically from scratch as the developers will never 100% agree to move to a new license. The code cannot be taken directly without violating the GPLv2 licensing.

[Tsuroerusu]

We'll see if Linus changes his mind about GPLv3. If he doesn't there will be alot of core GNU tools and programs that will no longer be able to be used with Linux.

Where have you been reading your GPLv3 FUD? You can absolutely use a version of glibc, that is under GPLv3, with the Linux kernel.

Will the future be GNU/Solaris?

The future with be: GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, ...

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license?

That would be correct.

Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

Well, if you were to migrate the Linux kernel to GPLv3, I think you would get the newly formed Linux Foundation involved anyway, so if it were something that was going to be done, I think it would require the assistance of a large organization.

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

True, however I can't imagine Solaris still containing that much original UNIX code, I think a lot more of it is code from the various releases of BSD that came out of UC Berkeley.

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license? Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

It's possible. What you get is another Linux, a GPLv3 one. Linux has already moved from GPLv1 to GPLv2. Developers have a choice which Licensed version they want to develop for.

This is not true. Linux has ALWAYS been under GPLv2, originally it was not under the GPL at all. Originally it was under some really simple license that Linus had written himself, I can't remember exactly when he switched it to GPLv2.

On a side note, GNU's Not Unix, plus a Unix kernel is pretty funny.

It should be called GIS (GIS Is Solaris)

Nah, GNU/Solaris is a good name.

I don't see how it's possible for Linux to switch to GPLv3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the thousands of developers who have contributed code to the kernel over the years have to all agree on moving to a new license? Even if Linus was on board for GPLv3, it would be difficult or impossible to switch licenses.

It's possible. What you get is another Linux, a GPLv3 one. Linux has already moved from GPLv1 to GPLv2. Developers have a choice which Licensed version they want to develop for.

I think that the Kernel has always used GPLv2 since Kernel 1.0 and there was a license applied to it, if memory serves. Even so, if there was a GPLv1 applied to the kernel during early development it would have been easier to get the fewer number of developers at that point to agree to move to GPLv2 due to the minimal amount of changes from GPLv1.

GPLv3 has such drastic changes that many people are not going to move to it due to the added restrictions. Freedoms should be applied to all in an equal way, if there is a profit motive or not when receiving that freedom. Yes, a new Linux like kernel could be created, but it would have to be done practically from scratch as the developers will never 100% agree to move to a new license. The code cannot be taken directly without violating the GPLv2 licensing.

Dude you seriously need to go listen to the interview with Jeremy Allison, the GPLv3 is far from as radical as you make it sound.

For your convenience:

TLLTS with Jeremy Allison: http://tllts.org/mirror.php?fname=tllts ... -10-07.ogg
(The GPLv3 discussion starts around 67:00)

Linux.com podcast with Jeremy Allison: http://podcasts.networkworld.com/linuxc ... uxcast.mp3

[Vogateer]

Didn't Stallman himself say on the TLLTS that there was no problem using GPLv3 software on top of a GPLv2 kernel? The GPL is viral, but not quite that bad.

I'm really not sure how drastic the GPLv3 is, to be honest. Jeremy Allison seems to be a pretty damned sharp fellow, as well, and thinks it's more of an evolution than a radical change. Stallman's hard to follow, being such a strange fellow, but I could understand Jeremy and his thoughts much better. We can already see that companies like Novell are going to try to leverage patent issues to their advantage, which we can all agree is a bad thing.

I still don't know what to think about DRM. I know I won't touch music loaded with it, and I'm mad at myself for buying so many DVD's in the past, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate uses for it. I'll have to wait and see on that one.

[Tsuroerusu]

Didn't Stallman himself say on the TLLTS that there was no problem using GPLv3 software on top of a GPLv2 kernel?

This is exactly right, since you're not mixing code or linking, there's no problem at all.

The GPL is viral, but not quite that bad.

This is a matter of whether you see the GPL as good thing or a problem. I think the world "viral" makes it sound like the GPL is like an infectious virus that's all horrible and stuff. During Revolution OS, Bruce Perens said "I don't like people saying viral, I prefer partnership license." and I agree with that.

I'm really not sure how drastic the GPLv3 is, to be honest. Jeremy Allison seems to be a pretty damned sharp fellow, as well, and thinks it's more of an evolution than a radical change. Stallman's hard to follow, being such a strange fellow, but I could understand Jeremy and his thoughts much better. We can already see that companies like Novell are going to try to leverage patent issues to their advantage, which we can all agree is a bad thing.

To me it seems like Novell is using people's fear of patents to their competitive advantage against Red Hat, which I think is absolutely absurd.

I still don't know what to think about DRM. I know I won't touch music loaded with it, and I'm mad at myself for buying so many DVD's in the past, but that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate uses for it. I'll have to wait and see on that one.

Listen to the Linux World podcast I linked to, Jeremy Allison rebuts the idea that GPLv3 would stop people from using a GPLv3'ed OS kernel in a secure system like an election system.

[allix]

From a technical standpoint solaris is very different from linux.
solaris is very good as a server, cluster,firewall,its stable and secure.

When you look at the amount of hardware archs that linux supports ,, allbeit it takes longer to port to a different arch than netbsd , due to the fact that the linux kernel is just a i386 model that is hacked to work with other archs, whereas netbsd has a very portable api from the start.

The old saying goes,
FreeBSD developers are unix hackers who got unix on to a pc, whereas linux developers are pc hackers who made a unix like system for the pc..

Of course thats largely changed over the decades, but it was a great comment at the time.

can you image a opensolaris running a Nokia N800

I could be totally wrong of course..

[chuck]

The GPL is viral, but not quite that bad.

This is a matter of whether you see the GPL as good thing or a problem. I think the world "viral" makes it sound like the GPL is like an infectious virus that's all horrible and stuff, I prefer the word

I'm not sure what word you would use, but the GPL is viral. If you listen to Jeremy Allison's FLOSS Weekly interview (since you seem to respect his words so much) he says that the GPL is more borg-like than anything MS has done. If you license under the GPL you are voluntarily submitting to the collective.

I'd like to discuss some of the other topics you raised in regards to the JA interviews but I haven't had time to listen to the podcasts you've referred to.

However from my reading and understanding of the GPLv3, I see it as more restrictive than the v2 version is in regards to the choices that the next person has with the software and code.

[chuck]

We can already see that companies like Novell are going to try to leverage patent issues to their advantage, which we can all agree is a bad thing.

To me it seems like Novell is using people's fear of patents to their competitive advantage against Red Hat, which I think is absolutely absurd.

And what is wrong with that? Patents are a real thing, like it or not. The issue is that Novell made a deal with MS, the 'Big Evil' for the benefit of Novell's customers. They still have to watch their own development models so they do not cross patents as they are not granted immunity as so many believe. From a business standpoint, it was a great move. Community wise, not so much.

Patents in general are a good thing. They protect good ideas for a determined amount of time. The problem with patents today is that the department that regulates them is so overwhelmed by companies trying to pull fast ones that it becomes an ineffective system.

[Tsuroerusu]

I'm not sure what word you would use, but the GPL is viral.

This is what happens when you starting playing an addictive game while writing a forum reply, you forget what you write!
I've edited my original reply to say what I really wanted to say.

If you listen to Jeremy Allison's FLOSS Weekly interview (since you seem to respect his words so much) he says that the GPL is more borg-like than anything MS has done. If you license under the GPL you are voluntarily submitting to the collective.

Jeremy also once said: "I don't give away my software, I cooperate with people who cooperate with me."

I'd like to discuss some of the other topics you raised in regards to the JA interviews but I haven't had time to listen to the podcasts you've referred to.

However from my reading and understanding of the GPLv3, I see it as more restrictive than the v2 version is in regards to the choices that the next person has with the software and code.

It is a little more restrictive, that is correct, but it's restrictive in a way that guarantees the user more freedoms, and it's more restrictive to close loopholes like what RMS refers to as Tivoization.
However, besides that, it's not that radical a change.

And what is wrong with that? Patents are a real thing, like it or not. The issue is that Novell made a deal with MS, the 'Big Evil' for the benefit of Novell's customers. They still have to watch their own development models so they do not cross patents as they are not granted immunity as so many believe. From a business standpoint, it was a great move. Community wise, not so much.

Free software (Especially with the GPL) is all about creating an even playing field, software patents try to pollute that even playing field. Novell's deal with Microsoft is a cleverly thought out way to sign a patent cross-license that would not violate the GPL. They don't call it a patent cross-license, and I'm sure it's not technically a patent cross-license, but in effect/pratical terms, it is.

Patents in general are a good thing. They protect good ideas for a determined amount of time. The problem with patents today is that the department that regulates them is so overwhelmed by companies trying to pull fast ones that it becomes an ineffective system.

Computer software is basically just a bunch of math, patenting of math is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Imagine if you could patent second degree equations, ridiculous, right? Well, that's basically what you can do with software patents.

Hardware patents I generally have no problem with.

[Wally Balljacker]

My problem with the GPLv3, is that by supposedly giving users more freedom, it is taking freedom away from hardware vendors. I don't think Linux kernel hackers have any right to tell Tivo what they can or can't do with their hardware. As long as Tivo is playing by the rules and contributing their changes back, I don't see a problem. The average person who even cares about modifying their Tivo is better off building a MythTV box, anyway. If anyone listened to the most recent episode of LaGER, I expressed the same opinion.

[Tsuroerusu]

My problem with the GPLv3, is that by supposedly giving users more freedom, it is taking freedom away from hardware vendors. I don't think Linux kernel hackers have any right to tell Tivo what they can or can't do with their hardware. As long as Tivo is playing by the rules and contributing their changes back, I don't see a problem. The average person who even cares about modifying their Tivo is better off building a MythTV box, anyway. If anyone listened to the most recent episode of LaGER, I expressed the same opinion.

Listen to the interviews with Jeremy Allison he comments on exactly this, and I fully agree with what he says. It makes little sense for me to transcribe what he says when you lazy bastards (Just kidding) can listen to the podcasts!

[Wally Balljacker]

My problem with the GPLv3, is that by supposedly giving users more freedom, it is taking freedom away from hardware vendors. I don't think Linux kernel hackers have any right to tell Tivo what they can or can't do with their hardware. As long as Tivo is playing by the rules and contributing their changes back, I don't see a problem. The average person who even cares about modifying their Tivo is better off building a MythTV box, anyway. If anyone listened to the most recent episode of LaGER, I expressed the same opinion.

Listen to the interviews with Jeremy Allison he comments on exactly this, and I fully agree with what he says. It makes little sense for me to transcribe what he says when you lazy bastards (Just kidding) can listen to the podcasts!

Can I get the gist of it?