> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 9/10/2010 6:11 PM, Edward Martinez wrote: > > It appears this is the license Solaris 11 Express > wil be under and it's > solaris 10 new license, an OTN lincese. > > > > > http://c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6891-Licensing-Change-for > -Solaris-10-and-Solaris-Cluster.html > > I find this section of the license even more > interesting: > > > Open Source Software > > "Open Source" software - software available without > charge for use, > > modification and distribution - is often licensed > under terms that > > require the user to make the user's modifications > to the Open Source > > software or any software that the user 'combines' > with the Open > > Source software freely available in source code > form. If you use > > Open Source software in conjunction with the > Programs (or if you > > plan on licensing your own application under an > Open Source > > license), you must ensure that your use does not: > (i) create, or > > purport to create, obligations with respect to the > Oracle Programs; > > or (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third > party any rights to > > or immunities under our intellectual property or > proprietary rights > > in the Oracle Programs. For example, you may not > develop a software > > program using an Oracle program and an Open Source > program where > > such use results in a program file(s) that contains > code from both > > the Oracle program and the Open Source program > (including without > > limitation libraries) if the Open Source program is > licensed under a > > license that requires any "modifications" be made > freely available. > > You also may not combine the Oracle program with > programs licensed > > under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") in any > manner that > > could cause, or could be interpreted or asserted to > cause, the > > Oracle program or any modifications thereto to > become subject to the > > terms of the GPL. > > > They make it sound like they feel threatened by > OpenSource software, > the GPL in particular. While I have no love for the > GPL, I've never > thought that any OSS license would create the need > for language like that. > > -Kyle
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that some of that language is necessary from the standpoint of defending their own licences. In a perverse way though, it may help customers insofar as it warns them off of a path of mingling GPL and non-GPL code in (according to some interpretations) forbidden ways. It's offensive sounding language, but I'm not sure it has much in the way of practical consequences. More bothersome to me is that non-profit non-development personal use seems to me to be utterly excluded. How many developers that cannot afford a license can afford a dedicated system that they can only use for development, testing, and demonstration of their apps, and not double as a desktop or home file server or something? To fully comply would just about limit one to running x86 under VirtualBox or VMware or the like, only when needed for the stated purpose. And what about self-education and familiarization? Realistically that should be part of development or of any other usage, continually. Excluding uses that would never have been a cash cow anyway doesn't create more profit, it creates less, by closing a path whereby those uses might have been the start of a progression into a paying customer. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
