Oracle Could Still Make ZFS A First-Class Upstream Linux File-System

[oiaohm]

"Oracle can steal all the code because they control the licence by being the license steward. : fear fear panic :"
No, not true. New Versions Effect: The code can never be stolen.

The ability to re-license and extend with you never being able to see the what they have added to your source code or where you have used your source code is classed as stolen.

So like it or not my statement is true and yours is false. CDDL gives Sun then Oracle that power.

"CDDL is not compatible with other open source code. : fear fear panic :"
Incorrect. Larger works: The licence only retains to its own code.

"CDDL is not compatible with proprietary code. : fear fear panic :"
Incorrect. Larger works: The licence only retains to its own code.

Where is your legal review saying CDDL is safe with proprietary code. I have many that says it not compatible at least not why any proprietary license.

https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/whitesource-blog/top-10-cddl-license-questions-answered/

Notice point 10 here that your proprietary code has to be special licensed for the conditions in CDDL and the way your code is constructed and build has to be performed particular ways to avoid clashing with CDDL. So you claim CDDL license only effects CDDL labelled code is wrong due to its only clause it ends up effecting your complete project license so you don't breach CDDL.

Yes I can give review after review stating that CDDL is not compatible with lots of Open Source licenses and using CDDL parts come restrictive on your proprietary code license that you mix with CDDL. CDDL demands that any over license does not alter it source code terms.

Not incorrect that only retains to it own code if you use CDDL the wrong way in the USA it comes viral same with a lot of other Licenses that you might think harmless. CDDL applied to header files with macros and inlines it is now viral at this point once you use those macros and inlines in other no CDDL files. There is a ruling in the USA that macros and inline in header files are not classed as API define instead classed as active code. So you cannot copy them as is from header files and using them in your code means you code has to conform to the license of the header file. This is a bingo surprise of the USA counts the way they ruled that using macros and inlines was part of the source file using them as well as the header they came from.

Please note the USA ruling effects stuff like MIT licensed header files as well this is not as big of problem with a lot of license stuff as with MIT does not say only its terms. Funny enough using MIT header files with a CDDL file equals trouble.

GPL define of derivative work in fact stops this evil if the header is GPL as long as your code is true independent work. CDDL does not have clause to deal with how USA courts have ruled. In fact a lot of the older licenses like BSD licenses don't have clauses preventing inline and macro causing clash based on how the USA court ruled.

"CDDL is file based : double fear fear panic :"
Correct. waaaat? It's file based not derivative works based. Citing this as a problem is pointless because it is a different type of licence, it applies to real files not imaginary definitions of "works" and who draws the line where. This is a philosophical argument almost.. When two things are in conflict with each other what takes precedence? The abstract or the factual? The factual does, thats why file based makes more sense. Everyone always knows where the line is. (even without going to a fancy school)

The file based comes from proper legal assessments on CDDL how that term of only under CDDL terms could be implemented. The smallest unit you can legally distribute is a file. So another incorrect fear and panic claim.

"But the MACROS!! Ohh the MACROS! The whole kernel has to be CDDL if you use any CDDL! It's viral just like.. umm.. never.. mind.."
No. ZoL compiles today without patching the kernel source at all. It is a complete implementation.

Please note I have never said the whole kernel has to be CDDL. It was you who said CDDL could be in a GPL module and that is not the case.

Zol follows the Nvidia and OS X dtrace method of legal arms length to a point. There are questions on some of the overlaps in Zol that they may not have kept all the separations as clean as they need to be..

"But it doesn't use the kernel!"
Good. Half the shits broken in Linux anyhow. You want the btrfs guys to implement something as complex as ZFS? scary..

Duplication of functionality has always be a road block to merging. Zol leaks memory like it going out of style because it uses a lot of lower level things wrong.

The price from wrapping form one API to another API is always compatibly problems. Yes lets make an invalid excuses for not using the common core in the Linux kernel claiming is all broken. When it you legally cannot use it and end up abstracted and applying solaris kernel methods to Linux kernel and watching everything go wrong. Round peg square hole.

The reality here is the btrfs guys have better chance of working properly on Linux than ZFS does while CDDL license clause exists causing the Linux kernel to be abstracted to pretend to be another OS. OS X bugs in dtrace come from the same problem of abstracting the OS X kernel to solaris structures to avoid CDDL issue.

CDDL stuff being broken on non CDDL kernel is quite common it is not Linux unique its due to the hoops the CDDL license causes.

"Oracle can legally take everything that is OpenZFS! : MOST FEAR : "
So their version sucks so bad because..? why? No, Oracle has not implemented any OpenZFS improvements and there are HUGE changes.

Really this is another case of head in sand. Because if Oracle version is as bad as you make out forking OpenZFS would be the most beneficial option for Oracle. You should always presume a company like Oracle will do what is most beneficial for them.

Basically all this fear/panic crap claim by you is basically you sticking you head in the sand and not using a single legal review to see where the state of affairs really is.

I have used a few legal reviews to base my point of view on. You have not provided one cite backing your point of view. Instead I am meant to take you at faith.

k1e0x so far in the camp of supportable claims about CDDL license or GPL license you have made is zero. You have fairly much got everything wrong. It really about time you spend some time reading the legal reviews and learn that CDDL is a problem child. CDDL can only be used with licenses be it open source or closed source that contain particular clauses/mode of operation and be legally safe. Freebsd license itself is not one of them. There is a common error about CDDL that you can license binaries how ever you like and that is false as well. Binary license over something containing CDDL cannot contain any clause about source that would over ride the CDDL parts terms.

[url]https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT[\url]
The reality of now bad CDDL is that MIT license is technically incompatible with CDDL. Because including MIT work in a CDDL file would require adding MIT terms to the file that the CDDL license absolutely forbids.

There is a legal review out there covering why different licenses should not be mixed with MIT licensed works.

Reality here GPL is hard to get alone with. CDDL is even harder. BSD and MIT licensed works are also not exactly fun due to different USA court rulings there is a list of things you have to watch out for.

[k1e0x]

I think you've made it pretty clear you have no idea how these systems work. "Round peg square hole?" Tell me more about how this is done.. I'm curious.


I think I finally figured out why I'm talking to you.. you pointed it out to me very clearly in your last post. Your trying to win an argument here.. maybe this is what you do all day and you don't know any better but I don't care about the argument, I know nobody is reading this so the end result doesn't matter to anyone but us and our minds are already made up. (I go yep and you say nope about sums up all this will ever come to.) For you.. whats in it for you? It's not like your going to be standing around in the lobby telling you friend "man I really got this guy on the internet BAM" ... No.. you see the reason I'm still here is actually I'm interested in you as a person.. thats why I don't need to cite anything. I can google just as well as you can.

Let me explain, the interest to me comes from your passion here.. not from the googling.. In fact I haven't looked at a single thing you've posted because that not interesting to me. And using google.. waste of time.. that doesn't fulfill what I want to get here. What I'm after is I want to see you use your own reasoning and beliefs and talk to someone as if they were a human being. (being a lawyer I'm skeptical if you are). Laws are not how we were born to interact with each other. They are dangerous disruptive and harmful. This thread ^ ^ points up ^ ^ is a massive crime against humanity the suffering and words written by smart people on topics like this not just by us but around the world is staggering.. Imagine the art, code or music that could be created in that time?

One thing that I want to ask you very directly tho.. You would say that this is your professional opinion about the CDDL?

[oiaohm]

Don't believe k1e0x is a lawyer for one moment. If I knew what law firm you were in I would be reporting to your partners for incompetence.

One thing that I want to ask you very directly tho.. You would say that this is your professional opinion about the CDDL?

CDDL section 3.1 is taken way too lightly.

Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License.

Any lawyer worth their salt should have read this line and understood it at least partly.

So if you use CDDL you must provide source code when you provide the binary at least being the CDDL parts. So you are no longer proper closed source. MIT and BSD you can get away with only declare of presence.

Next your project license cannot conflict with CDDL files by adding any extra terms to them due to the "only under the terms of this License". So a MIT licensed project inserting a CDDL file is out same with inserting a MIT licensed block of code into a CDDL file because both cases you have added extra terms the CDDL license directly forbids. GPL inserting MIT licensed into a GPL licensed file not a problem putting GPL inside a MIT licensed project is trickier but legal in particular cases.

You will find that most open source licenses are CDDL incompatible.

Most open source license don't use only under the terms of this license only that the term of their license get preserved and licenses demanding terms preserved. Demanding terms preserved is CDDL incompatible.

Then for parties inside the USA you have different judgement rulings that have made even licenses like MIT viral when used with header files with inlines and macros so requires extra due care.

To be worse Any Covered Software depending on what country you are in has different meanings.

Reality here k1e0x I don't even believe you have bothered reading CDDL from top to bottom before being a troll supporting it. 3.2 of CDDL is clear that anything you add to a CDDL part has to be under CDDL.

In fact reading all of section 3 of CDDL is required before doing anything with it. Read it careful and work out that CDDL is one of the most conflicting licenses ever. it conflicts with more things than MPL 1.0.

The reality I pointed to 3.1 in CDDL enough times. And you have just come back with list of garbage arguments that are all false. If you are a lawyer you would be the type of lawyer I love disbarring in court by working out legal ways to call them as a witness and asking the question if all the statements they have given to the court ever have been true. I am the type of legal console who job is not to run the case but to research and plan how to make sure the lawyer on the other side never practice again. It funny how you get a lot more settlements working like this.

[oiaohm]

Really I don't believe you have read CDDL 1.0 at all k1e0x. I don't believe you are a lawyer either. You have not once used the terms of CDDL to make your case.

[k1e0x]

Really I don't believe you have read CDDL 1.0 at all k1e0x. I don't believe you are a lawyer either. You have not once used the terms of CDDL to make your case.

You kidding? I couldn't DO that to people.

Have you ever been to jail? You don't have to answer that but I think every lawyer should be forced to go to jail because they need to understand that law isn't a game, it's not a debate, the amount of suffering and dehumanizing that this game they think they are playing causes is sicking.

I have read it btw.. thats not saying much tho because its very short. I like it, It's very clear and written in a.. more human.. language than other licences like the GPL. the spirit of it is really nice because it's a new spin on an old idea. One of the (few) downsides to it is Sun didn't really think about their impending demise or being in a situation like this.

[k1e0x]

Your also dodging a bunch. I can still point out cases where your wrong above if thats what it takes for you to continue..

You want one? New or old? hmm.. well lets go with new.

The ability to re-license and extend with you never being able to see the what they have added to your source code or where you have used your source code is classed as stolen.

Actually we have seen the code for Solaris 11 one of the developers Oracle pissed on did the right thing and leaked it.

[oiaohm]

I send lawyers to jail if they believe lies and tricks are ways to win cases. I specialist in getting rid of lawyers of believe deception is way to win.

Reality you have not done a post using CDDL license. as reference.

Section 3.1 CDDL question how do you make this FreeBSD license compatible? Your a lawyer right k1e0x Lets have some fun ripping you to bits.
.

[k1e0x]

I send lawyers to jail if they believe lies and tricks are ways to win cases. I specialist in getting rid of lawyers of believe deception is way to win.

Reality you have not done a post using CDDL license. as reference.

Section 3.1 CDDL question how do you make this FreeBSD license compatible? Your a lawyer right k1e0x Lets have some fun ripping you to bits.
.

But you do all kinds of deception.. It's staggering.. there is so much slack and inconsistencies in your post here that I wouldn't know where to begin. Your filling in a lot of gaps.

Your doing the same thing.. and before you EVER send anyone to jail.. go yourself.. go see. Some people rather wish they were dead. Would you just shoot them on the spot?

[oiaohm]

Section 3.1 CDDL question how do you make this FreeBSD license compatible? Your a lawyer right k1e0x Lets have some fun ripping you to bits.

k1e0x avoiding the question. What were you fibbing that you are a lawyer.

[k1e0x]

I would never be a lawyer buddy.

And I did you the favor of continuing this, do me the favor?

Your realize what we are talking about right? If we step out of the law room for a second your talking about collaborative software and what the intent is for that group as a general whole. Generally 6 people can't agree on what type of Pizza to order, and thats ok. We were made to be different and thinking somethings different doesn't mean its immoral. Software is a lot of things.. it's literature, engineering, history and information. Nothing like it has ever existed before it's creation, how do you reconcile those groups AND at the same time apply 200 year old copyright law to it? - and doing so with the threat of force and guns..

Thats why people talk about this so much.. the system is terribly broken.