More Oracle Open Source Fallout

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Pieri
> 
> Oracle jointly holds the copyright to the OpenOffice code.  Code
> contributors must sign a contributor agreement before Sun, now Oracle,
> will accept their code.

I went and read through the openoffice code last night.  There are a bunch
of files which are copyright Oracle or Sun, and a bunch of files that are
copyright other, such as FSF and IBM, and a zillion others.  So for a
moment, I though "Aha!  Richard is wrong!  These other files are not owned
by Oracle."  but then I thought about it some more ... Things like the FSF
regular expression parser, and various other libraries and scripts ... It
depends on how they're linked.  If the various other GPL libraries and so
forth get linked into the binaries of openoffice, then the openoffice
binaries constitute a "derivative work" of the GPL code, and the openoffice
source code must be released under GPL compatible terms.  But if they can
say the regular expression parser (and so forth) are separate works, whose
files (source and binary) are completely distinct and separate from the
files (source and binary) of openoffice ... then they can say the other
libraries etc are separate distinct works, which are used to support
openoffice, but not part of openoffice.  In the same way that non-GPL
applications can run on linux, using the linux kernel.

In the case of opensolaris (now called solaris express) it's actually a
complete distribution, including apache, gnu utilities, X11, and a zillion
other free software packages that are not owned by oracle.  The parts that
are owned by Oracle are the kernel, zfs, dtrace, and a bunch of other stuff,
but mostly just kernel, zfs, and dtrace.  They're still open source, but
only at release time.  You don't get the source while it's experimentally
under development.

The reasoning is basically so they don't get sued.  Cuz they're not earning
a lot of "good will" points with other big companies lately.  They want a
lawyer review before releasing code, so that means they can't constantly
release every nightly or weekly micromodification.

As for openoffice ... There's too much complexity.  I can't say.  Richard,
you could be absolutely right.  I am certain you're right that oracle
requires copyright assignment for contributions to their code to be released
by them.  But their code is definitely *not* openoffice as a whole.  They
own pieces inside.  And as evidenced by the existence of libreoffice, they
can't prevent people from making contributions that are released via
channels outside of their own release channel.

I think it's clear to say openoffice (libreoffice) as a whole cannot be
built without the parts that are owned by oracle.  I think it's also clear
that it can't be built without all the other parts, which are owned by other
organizations and people.  If these other parts get linked into any
"derivative work" binary of openoffice, that necessitates that oracle keep
their code open.