[binarycrusader]

Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this, and she did not really "write the license". The license is based on the MPL (Mozilla Public License), and was written by Sun's legal staff in consultation with management and others inside of Sun at the time.

I know it would be wonderful to just wrap the licensing conspiracy theories up in a pretty bow because it fits your logical conclusions, but it isn't that simple.

I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong. There is a difference. Danese may have believed that it was done for the reasons she claims, but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it.

There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so; with that, I feel safe in saying she is wrong (nevermind my own involvement).

[gillianseed]

>Danese is not actually the foremost authority on this

Who else would be? And yes, she did write the CDDL according to both herself and according to Simon Phipps, certainly it was scrutinised and possibly altered by Sun legal staff, but her writing it (as per the prerequisites made to her by Sun management) is undisputed. It doesn't matter if the licence was based upon MPL, the final licence is not MPL, it instead reflects the requests put upon Danese by that of Sun's management (and legal staff).

>but that doesn't make it so just because it's convenient to believe it.

You are the one denying the words of Danese while offering nothing whatsoever to support your claims.

All you are doing is to claim that trusting the words of the person who wrote the licence is akin to buying into 'conspiracy theories', nevermind that everything she said also makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.

If anything comes across as a 'fairy tale', it's the idea that Sun would allow Linux to incorporate Sun's technical advantages at a point where they were losing to Linux in the marketplace.

The person who wrote the licence claims she was told to prevent this, business logic strongly supports her claims, yet you pretend it's some 'conspiracy theory' while offering nothing to support your claims.

>I'm not saying that Danese is lying, just that she is wrong.

Come on, she is either lying or she is telling the truth, you keep trying to dance around this. She (Danese) wrote the licence (nothing has been put forth disputing this), she says that making it GPLv2 (Linux) incompatible was a prerequisite. She either lies or she is telling the truth.

I believe her because:

A) I can't think of any reason for her to lie B) it makes perfect sense from a business perspective

>There are far more people that have said that Danese is wrong that are qualified to do so

How are they qualified?

[binarycrusader]

  You are the one denying the words of Danese while offering nothing whatsoever to support your claims.

Oh really? How about this:

  Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of
  the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is
  speaking this way because she lost an argument inside
  Sun, not because her view is representative of the views
  of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along
  with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL
  for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait
  for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance
  removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still
  furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf,
  which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS
  movement.

  S.  (Simon Phipps)

From:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110605051830/http://www.opensol...

  If anything comes across as a 'fairy tale', it's the idea
  that Sun would allow Linux to incorporate Sun's technical
  advantages at a point where they were losing to Linux in
  the marketplace.

As one of the first contributors to the OpenSolaris project who had many long and heart-felt discussions with various Solaris engineering and executives, I believe your assertions are flat out wrong. Jonathan Schwartz (CEO at the time) was fond of saying "A rising tide lifts all boats"

http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/a-rising-t...

Others have pointed out that this is demonstrably false as well. Have you also forgotten when Apple was considering integrating ZFS into OS X?

Your argument also seems specious given that the only "OS" that had issues with integrating DTrace or other CDDL-licensed technology was Linux. Apple and many others have had no problem integrating it. So if Sun was really not willing to give up their competitive advantage, why would they give away technology under a license that was reasonable for almost every competitor?

As others have also pointed out, not everyone believes that the CDDL and GPL are as incompatible as many would like to claim.

It's just like the silliness you see in the Linux kernel today where some kernel symbols are marked with a special macro EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL?

http://lwn.net/Articles/154602/

If the GPL was strictly incompatible in all cases, then why is the extra silliness needed?

[deirdres]

At this point in the history of the CDDL, it's very much open to question what anyone's motives were at the time it was written. It is likely that the various parties involved - even within Sun - had varying motives: Sun, like any other large organization, was not monolithic in its opinions nor even its behavior.

Whatever the CDDL was designed or hoped to do, the ultimate question of what it /will/ do may someday be decided by a court. In the meantime, Oracle - which is notoriously well-equipped with lawyers - apparently believes that the CDDL-vs-GPL question does not prevent it from porting DTrace to Linux. If someone disagrees with them strongly enough to… well, do what, exactly? …that will be entertaining.

In the meantime, why does anyone bother to argue about whether Danese wrote the CDDL, didn't write it, knew what Sun was really after in writing it, or tap-danced naked down Sandhill Road while writing it?DTrace is coming to Linux, CDDL or no CDDL. That ought to be cause for rejoicing, not flogging the dead license horse.

[brendangregg]

I may be able to help explain one factor that hasn't been mentioned, and might be related:

Imagine that at a previous company you worked for - and one where you signed a standard confidentiality agreement - you were privy to a sensitive legal matter.

After you leave the company, there is much public speculation about that legal matter.

You can weigh in, and share the sensitive legal details that you were privy to - that are not publicly known. Would you? Should you? Can you?

Does this help explain?

I doubt anything new is going to be found by continuing these discussions. I can say what will be found going forward - exciting new observability made possible by DTrace on Linux.

[gillianseed]

>I doubt anything new is going to be found by continuing these discussions.

Agreed, and just to make something clear, me believing that Sun did indeed create CDDL to be incompatible with GPLv2 is not something I hold against Sun at all, contrary I think it was the 'right' thing to do given their circumstances as a company, had I been a shareholder I would have been angry if they gave away technology 'crown jewels' to their main competitor.

On the other hand, wearing my Linux user hat I really want to have this great technology at my disposal :) (something which is now thankfully being rectified by things like DTrace / ZFS on Linux)

Anyway, as I said, this is what I 'believe', it doesn't mean it is the _truth_, I've just yet to come across anything factual which would make me think otherwise.

[brendangregg]

From Bryan Cantrill, father of DTrace - which was the first code to be open sourced under the CDDL - said this on HN:

> the reason the GPLv2 was rejected is actually very simple: the strong copy-left left way too much ambiguity for our IHV partners.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4357507

Jonathan Schwartz, CEO, was asked this question in 2005 and replied:

> “So if the Linux kernel were to implement DTrace, Sun wouldn’t employ the patents against them?” “Knock yourself out.”

http://radar.oreilly.com/2005/11/oscon-jonathan-schwartz-int...

Jonathan did not say "it's valuable technology that we've invested in creating, and we would defend that intellectual property."

What Jonathan did say was in line with his open source vision. There were many interviews at the time about it; eg:

> With the Java platform I'd guess we reach 20 to 30 percent of the Internet every day (powering the games kids play online, the intranet application at a bank, etc.). Each of these constituents may think about Java in different ways, but in each case Java "sells" my brand. If you believe that brand is central to the next wave of Internet monetization--and I believe it is absolutely central--then the more people that know my brand, the more benefit inures to me.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9757417-16.html

If people are interested in continuing to research this for whatever historical reason, you'll find Jonathan gave many interviews about Sun's open source strategy. It's great for everyone, and Linux, that he succeeded in open sourcing what he did.