Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by xeekei View Post
    A BSD-licence means it would be able to ship with the upstream kernel? Sweet. I just wonder what would happen to Btrfs if ZFS suddenly became available to everyone on Linux.
    Btrfs will continue to live. IMHO Btrfs has a much better design than ZFS.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
      Of course. And we are saying is that it should be BSD or MIT (or similar GPL compatible) licensed to be fully usable by any OS.
      Is CDDL really GPL-incompatible though?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        Is CDDL really GPL-incompatible though?
        Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 (#CDDL)

        This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

        Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”.


        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-...ftwareLicenses

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
          How can source code be put in a cage?
          Very easy. M$ took the Code and makes patented Mods to the Code, and after that the Code is jailed in Redmond.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
            Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 (#CDDL)

            This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

            Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”.


            http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-...ftwareLicenses
            Maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems very arbitrary. Reading through the CDDL I'm not really seeing what makes it incompatible, and the GNU site doesn't really provide specifics (like an actual clause or paragraph number).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dibal View Post
              Very easy. M$ took the Code and makes patented Mods to the Code, and after that the Code is jailed in Redmond.
              So "M$" will visit the home of everyone with a copy of the source code and pry their computers from their hands then destroys each copy only leaving copies that are stored on computers owned by Microsoft hence preventing anyone else from using the open source code?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                Maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems very arbitrary. Reading through the CDDL I'm not really seeing what makes it incompatible, and the GNU site doesn't really provide specifics (like an actual clause or paragraph number).
                That's the FSF and GNU for you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by johnc View Post
                  Maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems very arbitrary. Reading through the CDDL I'm not really seeing what makes it incompatible, and the GNU site doesn't really provide specifics (like an actual clause or paragraph number).
                  The CDDL expects all source under that license to be released under the CDDL and nothing else, the GPL expects all source under that license to be released under the GPL and nothing else.
                  This is why there's usually little compatibility between copyleft licenses.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
                    The CDDL expects all source under that license to be released under the CDDL and nothing else, the GPL expects all source under that license to be released under the GPL and nothing else.
                    This is why there's usually little compatibility between copyleft licenses.
                    And I'm still not seeing how that makes it impossible for one to be a kernel module of the other.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      And I'm still not seeing how that makes it impossible for one to be a kernel module of the other.
                      Not impossible , just illegal to ship together.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
                        Not impossible , just illegal to ship together.
                        Yeah... but nobody can really explain why. "Because the FSF says so" seems like a substandard argument.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by nialv7 View Post
                          Btrfs will continue to live. IMHO Btrfs has a much better design than ZFS.
                          Interesting. Could you elaborate, please?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by archibald View Post
                            Wayland, X and Mesa aren't GPL licensed.
                            Yes, it's very unfortunate that Wayland is MIT licensed. The developers clearly made a mistake (LGPLv2 would be a much better choice) and their mistake will become a genuine issue somewhere down the road. So I see Wayland only as interim solution on the way to a GPL-ed display server.

                            X predates GPL and is irrelevant at this point.

                            Mesa is being developed by corporations and it's no secret that corporations hate GPL and are afraid of it. Mostly because they hate everything they cannot control and abuse. Mesa is lesser evil than closed source binary blobs but nothing more than that.
                            Last edited by prodigy_; 09-19-2013, 03:36 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by johnc View Post
                              Yeah... but nobody can really explain why. "Because the FSF says so" seems like a substandard argument.
                              Well SUN specifically designed CDDL to be incopatible with GPL

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
                                Yes, it's very unfortunate that Wayland is MIT licensed. The developers clearly made a mistake (LGPLv2 would be a much better choice) and their mistake will become a genuine issue somewhere down the road. So I see Wayland only as interim solution on the way to a GPL-ed display server.

                                X predates GPL and is irrelevant at this point.
                                Either these two paragraphs contradict each other, or the timeframe by which the MIT choice becomes an issue is much longer than the existence of X or the GPL, making these supposed "issues" irrelevant anyway.

                                Notwithstanding the fact you don't even begin to explain why it is a mistake, an issue, or unfortunate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X