Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement

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

  • FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement

    Phoronix: FSF Issues Fresh Statement Over ZFS On Linux With GPL Enforcement

    The Free Software Foundation has issued a fresh statement today concerning the recent ZFS file-system efforts on Linux, driven in large part by Canonical's plans for shipping ZFS support in Ubuntu 16.04...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...pril-ZFS-Linux

  • #2
    Just in case someone has forgotten: When Sun released ZFS, they deliberately chose a non-GPL compliant licence, and explained that they didn't want ZFS to compete with Solaris. People claim that Oracle (who bought Sun) have "changed their mind" but, for some reason that no-one can ever seem to explain clearly, Oracle haven't modified the licence to legally show their change of heart. Of course, Oracle haven't released ZFS for their own brand of Linux either, so I'm going to stick with this basically being "copyright infringement of Solaris code that happens to be have its source code posted on the Internet"

    Comment


    • #3
      And all the other OSS licenses have no problems with the cddl. Sorry, the problem was always the gpl.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by beast View Post
        And all the other OSS licenses have no problems with the cddl. Sorry, the problem was always the gpl.
        As deliberately chosen by Sun - expressly to prevent Linux getting ZFS when it competed with Solaris. I don't see the problem: if Oracle want this to happen, they can dual license. If not, then they are copyright owners and they can choose not to allow ZFS in Linux.. and don't forget: there is no ZFS in Oracle Linux.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why is it that the FSF always has to say something about other people's code? They (or GNU) never owned anything about Linux. What do Linus and the core developers have to say about this?

          The FSF is always quick to moralize everyone, yet when they (more precisely GNU, but Stallman anyway) fucked the LibreCAD developers it took months for them to even issue a one-liner statement. And that is the *only* professional, usable, free (as in freedom) CAD software around.

          How come they always annoy us with their "yeah-it-free-but" BS while they don't seem to do anything about the whole Android driver situation? If they adhered to their own standards they'd sue the shit out of Google and Samsung.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by trilean View Post
            Why is it that the FSF always has to say something about other people's code? They (or GNU) never owned anything about Linux. What do Linus and the core developers have to say about this?

            The FSF is always quick to moralize everyone, yet when they (more precisely GNU, but Stallman anyway) fucked the LibreCAD developers it took months for them to even issue a one-liner statement. And that is the *only* professional, usable, free (as in freedom) CAD software around.

            How come they always annoy us with their "yeah-it-free-but" BS while they don't seem to do anything about the whole Android driver situation? If they adhered to their own standards they'd sue the shit out of Google and Samsung.
            Out of curiosity, why couldn't LibreCAD re-license as GPL v2 or later? I assume a situation similar to why Linux is GPL v2 only?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post
              Out of curiosity, why couldn't LibreCAD re-license as GPL v2 or later? I assume a situation similar to why Linux is GPL v2 only?
              They couldn't because it a fork of an open source release of QCAD and it's GPL2 only.
              Last edited by trilean; 11 April 2016, 05:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by trilean View Post
                They couldn't because it a fork of an open source release of QCAD and it's GPL2 only.
                Gotcha, although I'm told libdxfrw is more complete anyway.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                  Just in case someone has forgotten: When Sun released ZFS, they deliberately chose a non-GPL compliant licence, and explained that they didn't want ZFS to compete with Solaris. People claim that Oracle (who bought Sun) have "changed their mind" but, for some reason that no-one can ever seem to explain clearly, Oracle haven't modified the licence to legally show their change of heart.
                  Actually, Oracle changed their mind and modified the license.
                  Solaris and therefore new versions of the ZFS code base are proprietary these days.

                  Originally posted by beast View Post
                  And all the other OSS licenses have no problems with the cddl. Sorry, the problem was always the gpl.
                  Nobody has ever forced Canonical to base Ubuntu on Linux. If the Linux license is a problem, don't use it.
                  Sony chose FreeBSD and PS4's OS for similar reasons.

                  Originally posted by trilean View Post
                  Why is it that the FSF always has to say something about other people's code? They (or GNU) never owned anything about Linux. What do Linus and the core developers have to say about this?
                  As the author of the GPL, the FSF is in the position to clarify GPL clauses.
                  Linux is developed by thousands of people (Linus isn't even a large code contributor). His opinion counts for less than the GPL's author.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post
                    Gotcha, although I'm told libdxfrw is more complete anyway.
                    It is but for months it wasn't clear if LibreCAD would be continued at all. Great situation for the devs, they had to reimplement something because Stallman -- well I rather not say that in public
                    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                    As the author of the GPL, the FSF is in the position to clarify GPL clauses.
                    Linux is developed by thousands of people (Linus isn't even a large code contributor). His opinion counts for less than the GPL's author.
                    So if I choose the GPL as my license for my code my opinion counts less that that of the FSF? Sorry but wtf?
                    Last edited by trilean; 11 April 2016, 06:13 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X