Ed Cogburn wrote: > They won't release SO source under GPL, they have their own "version" > called the Sun Community License. From a few comments I've heard > elsewhere, its not free in the freedom sense.
SO now is basically Sun's product; so the company needs to make sure that any developments made into the product would still be conforming to Sun's "specification". I think it's understandable. Take a look at Sun's JDK; nobody is allowed to change Java spec without permission from Sun, but I believe that anybody can freely _implement_ the spec anyway he/she wants. >Look at Netscape's > Mozilla and the Mozilla Public Lincense. If Netscape couldn't generate > a lot of interest and energy for Mozilla, what makes you think Sun can > get the attention of the free software community? If Sun Community License lacks the appeal, why don't you ask Sun to release SO's source under GPL? At least, the codes for Linux (strip all the supporting codes for any other platforms except for Linux). What's so ugly about SCL? If the freedom you mean is the freedom to tweak SO anyway you want and still label it "SO", how would you know that the product, in the long run, would still be compatible with the SO that's backed by Sun? I think even if Sun is willing to release SO codes under GPL, Sun would need to create somekind of "SO Specification"; which has to be free, money wise. > Disclaimer: I am aware that Mozilla isn't 'dead', its progressing > slowly, but its clear Netscape didn't get the reaction it wanted from > the programmers of the free software world. If the programmers of the free software world are not interested to develop Mozilla, well, I believe that Netscape never listens to what they say (or, the programmers might have never said anything to Netscape). Oki
