Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OS Licenses

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the cow-for-free dept.

Linux Business 424

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."

cancel ×

424 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A lot of hot air (4, Interesting)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294838)

HP is moving more and more towards the consumer desktop market. Is this guy even going to have a job next week?

(first post?)

Re:A lot of hot air (1)

james_r_boyer (238556) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294934)

HP is actually not moving toward the Consumer Desktop market. With the exception of printers that is only a small part of the HP profits. Most of the money to be made rests in highend servers and services.

A far more interesting story (0, Offtopic)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295064)

Yahoo buys a billion worth of a chinese internet company... [bbc.co.uk]

Or possibly this story about tourists being offered a chance to fly around the moon for 100 million. [nytimes.com]

Sigh. Maybe its in the mysterious future, but I just don't know what slashdot is coming to these days... It ain't what it used to be.

s/GPL/BSD/ (4, Insightful)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294840)

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/ (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294854)

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

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294987)


They wouldn't be stealing anything, as the license allows that kind of use.

If you try to see BSD-like licenses from the perspective that "close sourcing" == "stealing", then you might as well just avoid it.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295156)

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

If it's published under BSD license, it can't be stolen, stupid.

And if MS uses it (in) Windows Linux (Microsoft Linux, it's going to compatible with Linux (or BSD). What's wrong with that. If they want to invest resources in further code development and fork it, it's their money...

And if you dont' want to use their stuff, just use the original/free BSD code.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (4, Insightful)

paitre (32242) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294868)

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.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (3, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294909)

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

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294935)

It's free as in actually free, rather than whatever custom definition fits the proposers agenda, be it communist, commercial, or what ever.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (0, Flamebait)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294950)

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

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

TWW

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (3, Insightful)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295088)

"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/ (2, Insightful)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295095)

I would call it Free From Philosophy.

Or perhaps Free From Hidden Agendas.

Free From Politics.

Free From Misinterpretation.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295148)

Free from sense? To use the BSD license is to devalue the time you spent on the code. A BSD-licensed project is shouting into vacuum - nobody but other altruists will ever publish improvements. GPL means that others who use the code are required to be as generous as you were. If they don't give back to you, at least they'll give back to others.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295201)

"A BSD-licensed project is shouting into vacuum - nobody but other altruists will ever publish improvements."
As it should be. After all free software is about freedom, and freedom cannot be achieved by forcing choices.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294927)

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!"

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295027)

The GPL doesn't prevent commercialization. It does, however, reduce the chance proprietary and incompatible variations.

Companies CAN licence GPL'd software, they have to go to the software's copyright owner, and if that owner is willing, negotiate a different licence that suits the company in question.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (2, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295138)

The Apache license for 2.x is unfortunately not just a vanillay BSD license. It has some limiting stuff in it which is why OpenBSD is still using the 1.x version of Apache by default. It's got a true free license.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294959)

> It's called leeching.

True! There's a tradeoff there though - how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL? I'd rather give those folks a safe way to contribute, and I've got zero interest in tracking down GPL violators.

And it seems to be working out well - check the contributors [sourceforge.net] page. Most of the real interesting stuff in PMD has come from other folks... like the data flow analysis stuff, for example. I want to avoid any chance of scaring away those folks ...

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

rawwa.venoise (881755) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295031)

I don't object the commercialization of source code, but having a company to sell a product and not refer to the author? At least some for of public acknoledge should be given to the creators IMHO

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295165)

That's one of the few restrictions the BSD license does place on its licensees. You must give credit to the original authors of whatever BSD-licensed code you use in your projects.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295086)

how many folks will _not_ contribute since they want to stand clear of the GPL

Not many I would think, they can contribute their code with a BSD or even public domain licence and you can still use it in a GPL codebase. Or didn't I understand the problem?

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295168)

> they can contribute their code with a
> BSD or even public domain licence

Right, but I think their concern is that they may "contaminate" themselves by looking at the GPL'd code. You know, it's like looking at CDDL'd code; if those ideas show up in your own code later and someone traces it back, bad times. Better to just stand clear, you know?

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294963)

I agree.

Although the BSD license has its place, I think the GPL is superior in the arena of source changes.

I'm all for being able to change the code, and if you distrubute the modified code, everyone should be able to see what you modified. That is what the GPL license gives us.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (3, Insightful)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295058)

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

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295126)


Therefore, GPL'd software is NOT a gift. It is simply a resource that one may choose to use or not use. If one uses this community resource are bound by the restrictions outlined in the license.

-Adam

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295191)

It depends what you want to happen with your product.

If your tool is complete and you don't want any help with it, and people should use it freely, use the BSD license.

If you want to see it improved and become something greater than one man's labour, use the GPL, because that's the only way you'll ever see the improvements.

By using the GPL, it says "look, I put some effort in here - you can use it for free, but all I expect is that if you do something cool with it, you do the same thing I did". This seems perfectly reasonable, and seems like a way to ensure the long-term success of a product.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

BRonsk (759601) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295132)

It's called leeching.
It's not called leeching. It's called being stupid and short-sighted.

If you take a piece of BSD software, fork it and close source it, you HAVE to give back your changes to the community. Otherwise your fork will get gradually away from the BSD 'still-open' branch. Soon enough incorporating changes from the main branch will be next to impossible: You won't benefit from the community effort anymore.

In clear, the BSD license grant people the right to be stupid. Hard to call that a weakness: There are and always will be stupid people.

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/ (5, Insightful)

ccbailey (859060) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294914)

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/LGPL/BSD/ (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294971)

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

Re:s/LGPL/BSD/ (1)

ccbailey (859060) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295121)

I don't think people equate leaching and use in this context; at least I don't. When you LGPL software you're encouraging people to use it. You're making it available at no cost and opening up the source for everyone to see.

I would consider a leech to be an individual or organization who took your code, closed it, modified it, and sold it back to you. Personally I would find that irksome (as I imagine many people, 25 or otherwise, would) which is precisely why I enjoy the sort of "protection" afforded by the (L)GPL.

Ever hear of LGPL? (1)

shareme (897587) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294947)

If you read the LGPL description is was designed fro your situation in fact Linux uses it:)

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

Ruie (30480) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295000)

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.

The important point of GPL is that it lowers entry barriers into the market - as distributors of GPL software must release all their changes back a newcomer with a neat idea can easily release a product that is just like the competition plus one improvement.

If you change all licenses to BSD than the first company that will not be a good corporate citizen and stop contributing their changes will become a monopoly.

Speaking of monopolies and changes, we know that Microsoft used BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows. Now what were their contributions back ?

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295192)

How do they become a monopoly? Everyone else has a copy of the original BSD code. The only monopoly they have is over their own creative changes. Just as would happen if they wrote closed-source software of their own from scratch in-house.

The Original BSD software is still out there. Did the TCP/IP stack for FreeBSD stop working when Microsoft copied it? Did Microsoft then have a monopoly on TCP/IP stacks? NO! THINK!

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (2, Insightful)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295022)

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

BSD's okay... (2, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295096)

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.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295114)

... 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 don't know what you mean with "hands tied", but you can do all the things you list with both the BSD and the GNU GPL license... the only things you can't do with the GPL is use someone's else code in closed source/proprietary apps without authorization from the author(s).

But you can "make some money" by selling GPLed commercial software, if someone want to buy it. (Don't confuse proprietary with commercial software!)

no one-size fits all (1)

cahiha (873942) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295161)

I think between GPL, LGPL, and BSD, we have pretty much all the bases covered in terms of different kinds open source license terms.

However, BSD alone is not enough to cover all the needs of open source software. I have made available code under all three licenses, depending on what objectives I had in mind. Just because you think that BSD works for your project doesn't mean that it works for all projects. People who pick the GPL generally do so deliberately and after a lot of thought, and the success of GPL-licensed projects shows that the model works well for some projects.

Re:s/GPL/BSD/ (1)

ltbarcly (398259) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295197)

but put those apps under the BSD license instead. ... They can even make a product out of it, make some money, and feed changes/improvements back into the program.

You've just described EXACTLY what the GPL is, BSD license with a requirement to feed changes/enhancements back into the program. That is what the license does, period.

With the BSD license a company is much more likely to take the BSD'd code, and then that's it. For example, microsoft's TCP stack.

And then... (5, Funny)

LuciferBlack (905438) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294845)

"IBM and SUN then asked HP to price printer supplies at a reasonable cost which drew and even bigger round of applause..."

Re:And then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294904)

oh how I'd mod you up if I had the points!

Jesus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295014)

Pat your self on the back for an all-around pointless post.

Re:And then... (2, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295034)

I do! ...

Shit!

Why (3, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294875)

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?

Re:Why (0, Troll)

Spodlink05 (850651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294962)

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.

It wouldn't be good for IBM or SUN, it would be good for HP, why else would he say it? All you need to do to please ./ types these days is shout open source and they all start gormlessly clapping like guppies. You don't need to give silly things like reasons and logical arguments. Tsk!

Re:Why (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295011)

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:Why (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295046)

Let's see if HP opens up any of their sources, say, HP-UX, OpenVMS or any other software tech owned by HP.

Re:Why (1)

3nd32 (855123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295133)

He's encouraging them to move to a more standard license so the software can be more widely integrated with other open source software. The fewer licenses there are, the simpler it is to use another app with your own without concern of being sued. Since their licenses serve basically the same purpose as GPL, they should switch to GPL to keep things simpler (GPL is just the first one that came to mind, I'm not saying that's the correct one for this situation).

Good move (1)

Digital Warfare (746982) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294879)

It makes sense. Why complicate OSS's by having multiple licenses ? It puts people off
We've all begged the question, now someone has finally asked the question.

Hosre Crap-ola de Jur (3, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295159)

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...

Somebody please explain OSI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294880)

They act like a government regulatory agency. It seems like people have heart attacks if their licenses aren't OSI approved. I think it's all bull cocky. I don't care if my license isn't OSI approved, they can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Re:Somebody please explain OSI (3, Informative)

drmike0099 (625308) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295042)

What they're trying to do is make it so that the term "open source" doesn't just become another marketing term that has no actual meaning. I've seen a lot of closed source, proprietary vendors referring in their marketing to "open standards" or "open systems" trying to leech off of the open source term and get credit where they don't deserve it (and it works all too often). If you have to back up your "open source" claim with an OSI-approved license, it's harder to pull that crap.

I do agree with you though that their statement that there should be fewer OS licenses is outside of the scope of what they should be doing. Approve them or don't, realizing that they're talking about other peoples' copyrighted material that they can license however they want, but leave philosophical discussions to some other group. I agree with that stance, they just shouldn't be the ones pushing it.

How about IBM and Sun just not list their licenses (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294882)

I mean..they can use them, but does OSI have to list EVERY compatible license for use? If they changed that then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think they should just list the major OS licenses (GPL, BSD, CC:SA, etc) and hide the complete list where only those really worried about a particular license are going to look for it.

Re:How about IBM and Sun just not list their licen (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294953)

That's exactly what the license-proliferation committee will be doing.
-russ

Choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295026)

Sourceforge restricts the open source licenses you can use to the ones listed by OSI. If the list has been just the ones you mentioned, I probably would not have put the project on Sourceforge. I have issues with GPL. Not what it means but how does it work in practice. I spoke with a FSF representative at a trade show and they (FSF) just don't seem to get it. So I voted with my feet on GPL.

*rolls eyes* (3, Insightful)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294886)

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:*rolls eyes* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294957)

Meaningless is right. I've seen the Solaris source code. Where's the source for HP-UX? Or for that matter why does the fact that I have two HP printers attached to my Windows XP system mean that I have to have six different software update agents running at all times?

No offense to the hardware vendor crowd, but honestly I want my drivers to be drivers and absolutely nothing else. If I am having problems I will come to you and ask for updates. I don't need your shit to be checking for updates on a daily basis.

oh noes (5, Funny)

cptbarkey (906688) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294892)

please sir, make your product less effective then mine. please?

Just use the GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294907)

Their lawyers prefer to get paid to reinvent the wheel.

GNU/OpenSlowaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294908)

A decade too late for anybody to care. Congratulations to Sun execs, failure becomes you.
Java would be nice if it was under an Apache style license.

When opening your mouth you need to put beef in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294912)

Talk is cheap. Where is the money? Will HP compensate IBM and Sun for the fiscal losses they suffer when giving up on sound intellectual property?

at the risk of sounding like an idiot (1)

castlec (546341) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294931)

where is hp's example of following said request? if it exists, i'd like to know about it. if they aren't following their own advice/request then they are just stabbing IBM/Sun in a hope of gaining our faith and stealing market share.

Re:at the risk of sounding like an idiot (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295080)

I was going to say that too., I don't recall HP-UX or True64 unix being openly available. Even the old VMS acquired from DEC is still closely guarded code....is HP their own worst hypocrite?

What a load of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294951)

Why doesn't HP publish all of their copyrighted and patented methods, procedures, inventions, etc under the GPL?

Who do they think they're fooling? And when did children start running multinational corporations?

GPL is Copyrighted too (5, Informative)

ikegami (793066) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294954)

In contrast [to GPL], an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted.

In contrast? The GPL and works released undef GPL are Copyrighted too. GPL doesn't work without Copyright.

Re:GPL is Copyrighted too (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295021)

Don't let little things like "facts" stand in the way of a good rant. ;-)

Tom

Re:GPL is Copyrighted too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295070)

You're confused. The *license* is copyrighted. The license is the document which starts with its name and ends with "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS".

Re:GPL is Copyrighted too (1)

Random832 (694525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295115)

So is the GPL - you can't even create derivative works of it as you can for software licensed under it. The Free Software Foundation strongly reserves all its rights to the GPL itself under copyright law, much contrary to the GPL's own philosophy.

HPUX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294955)

HPUX?....

HPUX Open Source! (2, Insightful)

CPIMatt (206195) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294956)

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

(NOT!)

-Matt

Copyrighted (1)

skarphace (812333) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294965)

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.

This statement confuses the hell out of me. Are they saying that the GPL license is not copyrighted or that the software can not also be copyrighted?

HP just figured it out (1)

cerelib (903469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294974)

The execs at HP just figured out that they do not have as good of software to offer and this is just a stupid ploy. Having non-GPL licenses is what is going to bring money and corporate interest to OS software. Some corporations will tell you that if any part of a product is GPL'ed they would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. Big business is afraid of "viral" OS licensing.

GPLd HP-UX ? (1)

garompa (714684) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294978)

He is talking about Suns Common Development and Distribution License and suggesting changes to it, why doesn't he suggest to themself opening up HP-UX ?

Don't Forget Apple's APSL! (2, Insightful)

billybob2 (755512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294984)

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] ).

Anything licensed with the GPL is copyrighted (3, Informative)

Beolach (518512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294986)

"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.
Licensing something with the GPL does NOT remove copyright protection; quite the opposite, if it was not for copyright protection, the GPL could not make the restrictions it does: derivitive works must also be licensed with the GPL, etc. If a work is placed in the Public Domain (where it has no copyright), then anyone can do anything they want with it, with no restrictions whatsoever.

There is a lot of confusion... (2, Informative)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294993)

There is a lot of confusion around there about what exactly is open source, free, copyrighted and/or proprietary software.

I suggest to everyone to read the Free Software Definition [gnu.org] and the FAQs about the GNU GPL [gnu.org] .

Yeah, even if you don't like RMS read them: they are very informative!

Re:There is a lot of confusion... (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295151)

There is a lot of confusion around there about what exactly is open source, free, copyrighted and/or proprietary software. I suggest to everyone to read the Free Software Definition and the FAQs about the GNU GPL.

That's not "free" it's "Free" - it only applies to the FSF use of the word. To paraphrase Nietszche, "there are freedoms but no freedom".

Sure, right after HP GPL's... (1)

kiick (102190) | more than 9 years ago | (#13294996)

...HPUX and all those patents on printer cartridges.

Free & Open Source != Public Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13294997)

"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."

From the context, the author seems to be saying the difference between IBM's open source software and GPLed software is that IBM's software is copyrighted.

GPLed software is copyrighted, too.

laptops (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295003)

He also offered to buy all the VP's on their staff's laptops loaded with windows or linux if they did...

hypocrites (1)

noisymime (816237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295018)

somehow it doesn't seem fair for HP to ask this of IBM and SUN when they won't even let other people manufature replacement ink cartridges for their printers!

Re:hypocrites (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295060)

Two multinational mega-conglomerates walk into a bar. One says to the other "why so glum?" The other replies "People are finding out we're a total scam! We just don't have enough cleaners to take care of the whistle blowers." ... Or something like that ...

Dunno, my PC is built from parts all-over. None of which are HP, SUN or IBM. Yet I can crunch numbers with the best of them.

Sure if you're making a 1000 processor cluster you need something like IBM but for the average home user... no way.

And that's where the money is at y0.

Tom

Pot calling Kettle... (5, Interesting)

knarfling (735361) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295036)

They have some nerve telling other companies to give out free licencing.

My company that just purchased 3 computers from HP. There was a total of 5 dual core CPUs. We had to purchase 10 licences for HP-UX 11.11. Utilities that were an extra charge had to be purchased on a per CPU basis as well. A utility that cost $300 ended up costing $3000 even if it was only used on one machine. And they have the nerve to tell other companies to make their licences free???

HP, if you want others to change their licences, lead by example.

Re:Pot calling Kettle... (1)

billybob2 (755512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295202)

I sympathise with your experience.

But HP is not being hypocritical, because they're not asking other companies to license their closed-source apps as Open Source. Rather, HP would like to see the apps that other companies already give out as Open Source be licensed under the most popular copyleft license, the GNU GPL.

Easy to ask IBM and SUN to change licenses. (2, Interesting)

Ober (12002) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295051)

But what has HP released lately under any license where we had access to source code?
HPUX source code going to be released under any kind of license soon?
Pure bullshit postering imho.

OSS, not OS (4, Insightful)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295059)

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? (2, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295069)

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

Copyrighted? (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295082)

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.

Whoever wrote that doesn't appear to know what "copyrighted" means.

The GPL is "copyrighted", too. Software published under the GPL or IBM's license or Creative Commons or Microsoft's EULA* is copyrighted. Almost everything is copyrighted, except things which have been put or have at last fallen into the public domain.

The license you publish under just tells the user what they can do with your copyrighted work. It doesn't change the fact that it's still copyrighted.

* Really more of a contract than a license.

Translation: (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295093)

We're fresh out of ideas, viz. we killed the instrumentation market, we EOLed our CPU, we EOLed our OS on said CPU, we lost the laser printer edge, and the PC market's margins are so thin we're bleeding to death.
Can we have some of your ideas?
Maybe HP should go down in flames, as a warning to other companies.

HP should be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295097)

HP should first release their own OSs (HP/UX, True64, VMS) under an open source license (and GPL would be great) before asking his competitors to do so

why am I not surprised. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295099)

This story seems like it was about to happen for quite some time.
In an interview with Jeremy Allison (http://us1.samba.org/samba/news/articles/lu46-all ison.pdf [samba.org] ):

- the HP lawyer completely understands the licences, and as he's put it to me, 'There's nothing you can't do with a combination of GPL, LGPL, MIT or BSD. Any business objective you can achieve with those.' You don't need the HP Public Licence 1.7 or whatever.

Same for HP-UX and Tru64? (1)

swamp boy (151038) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295108)

Just wondering if he thinks that his company's operating systems should be in the same boat. No, I didn't RTFA (yet).

Just to be clear... (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295123)

"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..."

Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think that's the case this time around, copyright remains in effect under the GPL. All it is is a license that says you have more rights than those permitted under copyright law as long as you abide by the terms of the license.

...unless he's actually saying that IBM's license, itself, is copyrighted (which doesn't seem like what was being compared).

Re:Just to be clear... (1)

RGRistroph (86936) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295139)

The GPL, itself, is copyrighted, so that still doesn't make a "contrast" between the GPL and IBM.

Feh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13295130)

Don't trust him, he's a fink!

hp hardware compatibility (1)

jgilbert (29889) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295137)

when all of hp's new hardware is linux compatible, i'll quit ignoring their lip service. they don't have to support linux on the hardware. just don't use linux hostile components. for example, the broadcom wireless chipset in the lance armstrong special edition notebook [hp.com] .

btw, they lost at least one sale because of it.

Wasted effort (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295163)

While I welcome the goals of the executive from HP, I just beg him to have more patience. The two companies he mentions will [soon] discover that their licences are not managing to have them cut it. I do not know of any company that has done what a rival has wanted it to. Otherwise SUN would have released java under the GPL long ago.

By the way, the executive would have taken this chance to announce that HP has placed all its software under the GPL that he seems to worship. Of course he didn't. Why? Because HP is afraid of taking that very important first step. What happened to "leading by example?"

Free HP machines for everybody (1)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295164)

It sounds like HP is forgetting that these other companies are businesses and therefore have to make business decisions.

If IBM and Sun saw a competitive advantage in releasing their code under the GPL, they would. It would be cheaper for them that way as they wouldn't have had to pay a bunch of lawyers to write up their current licensing schemes.

Whether it is a mindshare advantage, a market position adavantage or whatever, these companies believe that their licenses make them more money.

Asking them to relinquish this competitive advantage would be like asking HP to give away their hardware for free. In fact, in the interest of furthering the free software movement, I call on HP to start the free hardware movement: start giving away all HP machines (desktops, laptops, servers, printers, printer cartridges, etc.) for free in order to benefit the free hardware

Of geese and ganders (1)

twd (167101) | more than 9 years ago | (#13295170)

I wonder, is HP going to be consistent, and do the same thing for HP-UX that they are asking Sun to do for Solaris?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>