HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OS Licenses

Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that in order to help nudge Linux and open source software further into the enterprise, a vice president at Hewlett-Packard Co yesterday called on rivals IBM Corp and Sun Microsystems Inc to invalidate their open-source software licenses in favor of a free licensing model. During his keynote at the LinuxWorld Conference in San Francisco yesterday, HP's vice president of open source and NonStop Enterprise Martin Fink commended the Open Source Initiative on setting up new rules to limit the growth of open-source licenses." From the article: "He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted. Fink also called on Sun Microsystems to deprecate its Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), which applies to OpenSolaris, GlassFish and JWSDP, and to re-license Solaris 10 under the General Public License, which drew the crowd's applause."

s/GPL/BSD/

[tcopeland]

Reducing the license count is good, but put those apps under the BSD license instead. That way folks can use your program without their hands being tied. They can even make a product out of it, make some money, and feed changes/improvements back into the program. I've had folks send in contributions to PMD [sf.net] and say that if it was GPL'd they wouldn't be contributing their code.

And the fact that Compuware wraps PMD and calls it OptimalAdvisor [compuware.com]? More power to them! Maybe they'll contribute a bug fix or two, and maybe I'll sell a couple more copies of the book [pmdapplied.com]. A rising tide, as it were...

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[Anonymous Coward]

And also Microsoft can steal the code and use it Windows Linux.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[paitre]

Except that there are a lot of folks that don't -want- their OSS work to be commercialized by anyone else, if they're not going to do it themselves.

The BSD is a great license, but that is actually a -weakness-, IMO - that anyone can take BSD code, make a new product out of it, and not have to release those changes back to the community.

It's called leeching.

Why

[kevin_conaway]

Why? The article doesn't explain WHY it would be good for IBM and Sun to switch their licenses. To me, it seems like Fink is just trying to garner some positive attention to HP, which has been looked upon negatively for some time in the technical community.

On another note, did anyone else find it ironic that he is trying to push the ideals of software freedom of creativty and expression...by locking everyone under the same license?

*rolls eyes*

[Slime-dogg]

This seems like meaningless posturing for positive HP market spin. I don't see why two other companies would listen to the head of HP, when they haven't really been listening to the community itself for years.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[cnettel]

It's called free as in "no strings attached".

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/

[ccbailey]

Why not the poor old LGPL? Everyone forgets about this little guy when the GPL vs BSD flamewars erupt. With LGPL you can make sure that no one leeches your code while allowing others to build commercial apps around it ands feed their children or whatever...

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[AKAImBatman]

The BSD is a great license, but [the ability to commercialize] is actually a -weakness-

No, it's not a weekness any more than the GPL's requirement to provide source code is. Choose the right license for what you want to do, and you'll have no problems. For example, the Apache project works on the idea that providing a common code base instead of reinventing the wheel at 500 different companies is a good thing. Thus they provide code (donated by many of those same companies!) under the BSD license specifically so the software *can* be commercialized.

In the case of Linux, control over the source code is a more important feature than not reinventing the wheel. Thus it's under the GPL license.

You people need to wake up and remember the programmer's addage, "Use the right tool for the right job!"

HPUX Open Source!

[CPIMatt]

I guess this means that HP will distribute HPUX under the GPL from now on! Wooo Hooo!

(NOT!)

-Matt

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/

[tomstdenis]

I don't get this one though. I write open source software so people can use it. "leaching" is what they're doing by nature.

I mean how many Linux users really contribute back to the Kernel?

People used to be afraid of companies running off and locking people buying HW to a given OS.

Now because most OSS is written by kids [e.g. 25] they're just afraid of being left behind and not noticed.

The actual motives for a GPL or BSD or whatever license rarely has to do with the original goals.

Becase, really, if you want code to be just out there for folk to use you could make it public domain [like I do ;-)]

Tom

Don't Forget Apple's APSL!

[billybob2]

Since we're giving a laundry list of companies that have invented their own licenses to ensure their code can't be used by open source projects under the GPL (most notably Linux), why not mention Apple and their APSL [apple.com].

After all, the APSL has no advantages over the GPL or the LGPL [fsf.org], except that (from Apple's point of view) it prevents Linux from using the goodies in Darwin (such as the fast-booting Launchd [wikipedia.org]).

Re:Why

[hackstraw]

The article doesn't explain WHY it would be good for IBM and Sun to switch their licenses.

Nor why HP doesn't think its good for themselves either. From http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/1207 9_div/12079_div.HTML [hp.com]:

The HP-UX 11i Operating System license provides the right to use the software as described in these QuickSpecs, and is furnished under the licensing of Hewlett-Packard's Standard Terms and Conditions. Licenses for prior versions must be updated to this version either through the purchase of a Service Agreement that includes the rights-to-use new versions, or through the purchase of Update Licenses.

HP-UX 11i Operating Environment Per-Processor License, purchase separately: B9089AC
HP-UX 11i Enterprise Operating Environment, purchase separately from hardware: B9091AC
HP-UX 11i Enterprise to M/C OE upgrade Per-Processor License: B9094AC
HP-UX 11i Mission-Critical OE Per-Processor License, purchase separately: B9093AC

On another note, did anyone else find it ironic that he is trying to push the ideals of software freedom of creativty and expression...by locking everyone under the same license?

Yes, I did. I also agree with another poster that suggested maybe the BSD license vs. GPL. The GPL license is not very attractive to many commercial software companies, and may also conflict with other contracts that they are already bound to. In general, the BSD license is much more appealing to commercial endeavors. The BSD TCI/IP stack should be a sufficient example.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[LnxAddct]

Yea, nothing like spending your time coding something with the intent of furthering the community, only to have someone take your code, give you no credit, and profit from it. In general, people must be motivated or forced to do the right thing, the GPL enforces a strong community where as the BSD license places too much trust in corporations. I assure you that without the GPL you would not have huge companies working together on advancing linux. Do you really think Red Hat and Novell would be swapping security patches and other code enhancements if they weren't forced to? The proprietary advantage is too enticing for corporations, in fact a good lawyer could even argue that a corporation couldn't make such changes public simply because it would not be giving share holders maximum value. The GPL enforces cooperation and stimulates growth, it is a good license. This is not to say that the BSD license should never be used, but I feel much more comfortable contributing code to projects where I know my code will go to furthering the community as a whole.
Regards,
Steve

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[stienman]

It's called leeching.

As opposed to the GPL's form of forced reverse leeching?

Using the GPL is like saying, "If you don't follow my rules, you can't use my tools."

That's fine. I have no problem with authors choosing whatever license they want.

I would argue that *more* freedom comes to the user with software licensed under the BSD license. I have fewer restrictions when I choose BSD licensed software.

When I choose to license software under BSD, I am choosing to allow my users greater freedom than the GPL provides.

My community contributed software is a gift of my time and resources. I feel that gifts should come without strings and without expectations.

-Adam

OSS, not OS

[Jim Hall]

Can we please refer to Open Source either using the phrase "Open Source" or with the abbreviation "OSS"?? The "OS" usually stands for "Operating System".

So the headline of this article read to me like "HP calls for Sun and IBM to remove Operating System licenses" which is completely different from what the article was about.

</soapbox>

GPLed Software Not Copyrighted?

[pete-classic]

He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License [. . .] In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted.

I guess the hardest part of journalism school is learning to talk out of ones ass.

For those who, like this reporter, don't know: Any material must be under copyright for the GPL to apply.

J.T.F.C.

-Peter

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[Decameron81]

"It's called free as in "working for the Man for free.", or "I'm an idiot." for short."

It's called free as in "not only you can make choices, but everyone else too". And you look like someone who has a hard time accepting that kind of freedom.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[Infernal Device]

I would call it Free From Philosophy.

Or perhaps Free From Hidden Agendas.

Free From Politics.

Free From Misinterpretation.

BSD's okay...

[Svartalf]

But does NOTHING to prohibit proprietarization. People can USE your programs under the GPL all they want- they don't have their hands tied. It's when they modify it that they might, and I say MIGHT have their hands tied. As far as I'm concerned, they can have their hands tied in that regard- namely if you use this as the base for your stuff, you need to be able to give your stuff back. That's the price of admission- pure and simple.

Sadly so many BSD advocates just don't get this concept. It's not that your hands are tied per se, it's that you can't just arbitrarily go and reuse the code without paying up by way of your sharing. In my book this is just fine- and it's how most of the work I do in the FOSS world is licensed- either GPL or LGPL.

Hosre Crap-ola de Jur

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Well, it happens that not everyone is convinced that they should give up as much control as Our Fatherly Leader Richard Stallman thinks they should. That's why many people choose a BSD or MIT style Open Source license. In many ways, the GPL cuts its own throat by not recognizing that not everyone is a diehard socialist. In other words, the GPL has too much ideology in it for some people. Thus, they can maintain some control over their code while allowing others to benefit from its openness, by using a BSD type license. In other news, HP would like Sun and IBM to GPL their intellectual property because HP no longer does R and D...

This just pisses me off!

[ratboy666]

Ok, now we have HP taking pot shots at SUN and IBM.

Yes, HP /has/ given to the community, but in no way as much as IBM and SUN. NFS? SUN OpenOffice? SUN, Solaris 10? SUN (let's see HP open-source HPUX).

Before HP opens its yap, I want to see the source for HPUX, and CDE.

You know, that OS where you can't use local variables named "u" in kernel code (just like 30 year old Unix).

But NOOO - HP feels they must shoot at IBM and SUN for the (Open Source approved) LICENSE -- AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY CLAPPED?!?!?

Ratboy

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is is if they created their own BSD that cured cancer, ended war, and solved world hunger. The patches to make a free version would never see the light of day.

GPL: "You have the freedom to do whatever you want except reduce the freedoms of others"

BSD: "You have the freedom to do whatever you want, and if that includes taking freedoms away from others make sure you pay us off first"

Re:Why

[aug24]

In general, the BSD license is much more appealing to commercial endeavors

If you're talking about commerce that wants something for free, yeah. If you're talking about firms that have something and are considering giving it away, they I'd say 'bullshit'.

Any example of contracts that prevent release under GPL while permitting it under BSD licence would be greatly appreciated, cos I don't think any exist.

Justin.

Sun won't GPL Solaris

[olivercromwell]

Asking Sun to GPL SOlaris will never fly. Why? Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, as Solaris is basically an System V release, and we know how SCO feels about GPL, Linux, and so called leaking of SVRx code into Linux. Sun is a licencee, and if they did release the kernel code, they would be hooped. Same goes for HP with HP-UX, and IBM with AIX. Until the SVR code is GPL'd, no Unix based on SVR will every be GPL'd, regardless of who actually owns the copyright to the code.

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad to see millions and millions of lines of code rotting in it's own hell even though it is free - If everything was GPL, just think how much OpenSolaris and Linux could benefit from each other. But now as the state of affairs is - no one can benefit from the humongous efforts already taken by the other - every one has to reinvent his own wheel.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[gowen]

Greed, Power, or Spitefullness?

Am I trying to help everyone, regardless of their motive, or am I trying to promote the common good.

I've got an GPL licensed axe. I'll lend it to you if you want to build a log cabin, or cut firewood for yourself, or if you want to make a better axe that we can all share, you may borrow it.

If you want to use it for something I consider morally wrong (say, murder) then you can get your own fucking axe.

Similarly, I've got a GPL house. If you need shelter, you can come in. But if you want to use it to turn tricks, or sell crack, get your own fucking house.

Re:When HP makes some substantial...

[Anonymous Coward]

HP have not contributed as much source as the other companies, but HP is a major supporter abd helper of Linux and other open source projects. For example, they by a large margin sell and support the most Linux based servers of all vendors.

Their use is certainly not parasitic, you are clueless there, but you are partly right about the contribution.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[muuh-gnu]

> This means you get access to their changes whether they want to be nice or not

Of course, why are you so amazed about it? IT is the point to force freedom, the same way IRL force is used to abolish slavery (proprietary licences.)

> to give away code is not to help others, but rather to benifit yourself.

Wrong, absolutely wrong. The goal when using the GPL is to ensure that your code is never going to go proprietary and the basic freedoms taken away. I just fucking dont want anyone to restrict people access to my own code.

> If *I* can't make money off the code, you sure as hell won't either!

Wrong again. They can sell it as they want, but dont act as a little Stalin and restrict the access to the code, just to "make money". If their only way to "make money" is to restrict the access and the freedoms of the code, they can write their shit from scratch.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/

[arkanes]

While I'm sure the "spite" aspect plays a role, the main motivation of the GPL is actually something quite different. The freedom being protected in the GPL is the freedom of the user, not of the programmer. The point is to ensure that software users can change, modify, fix, or audit the software they run without onerous commercial licensing. That sort of freedom is what the GPL considers important and thats what it is designed the protect. The BSD license doesn't offer that protection, and therefor to people who think the freedom of software users should be protected, it's insufficent. This is political, to the extent that "People have the right to be empowered" is political.

The secondary purpose is to create a culture of sharing. You could view it sort of as the difference between a potluck and a soup kitchen.

Stupidity

[Brandybuck]

I don't know what's worse, the fact that a vice president of HP can be so stupid, or the fact that he got applauded for his stupidity. The former doesn't know what Free Software but insists on making a speech about it, and the latter are willing to applaud any praise of the GPL no matter how erroneous that praise might be.

It's one thing to want to limit the number of approved Open Source licenses. I may disagree with it, but I understand the motive. I can also understand his urging his competitors to use the more popular Open Source licenses instead of their own (even though HP still insists on proprietary for most of its software).

But when he says that the GPL is not copyrighted, he is being stupid. EVERY Free Software and Open Source license is copyrighted! Even the sacred and immaculately conceived GPL! For a LWCE keynote speaker to make such a fundamental blunder on the nature of Free Software is scandalous.

Too many companies make up their own OSS licenses.

[TorKlingberg]

He has a good point. It seems like every big company going into OSS make up their own license for no particular reason. Incompatible with every other OSS license out there of course.

Who is HP in the OSS world?

[justins]

Okay, companies which have released as much OSS software as IBM and Sun should listen to HP because... why?

I'm sure the Eclipse people and the OpenSolaris project, among many others, have been waiting with great anxiety for HP's opinion of what they are doing. "Hey guys, stop everything! Martin Fink says we're using the wrong license!"

Even if the guy has a point, it takes some gall for HP to tell these other companies much of anything about how to conduct their OSS business.