Originally posted by Rallos Zek
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by archibald View PostWayland, X and Mesa aren't GPL licensed.
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_; 19 September 2013, 03:36 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by prodigy_ View PostYes, 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.
Notwithstanding the fact you don't even begin to explain why it is a mistake, an issue, or unfortunate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by xeekei View PostInteresting. Could you elaborate, please?
An older article from someone who worked on ZFS for a few years at Sun. He raises a few points about why the btrfs design is better.
Comment
-
Originally posted by prodigy_ View PostYes, 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by prodigy_ View PostYes, 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.
Fun fact: Almost 90% of Linux kernel contributions come from corporations today. So remove all corporate contributions and you'll see how far many FOSS and GPL projects go.Last edited by jayrulez; 19 September 2013, 10:14 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by benmoran View Posthttp://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
An older article from someone who worked on ZFS for a few years at Sun. He raises a few points about why the btrfs design is better.
Comment
-
Originally posted by xeekei View PostA 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.
With that said, ZFS is better off outside Linus' tree. The /dev/zfs interface is currently not stable, so putting ZFS into Linus' tree would be a recipe for problems because the tools and kernel module would easily become out of sync. At some point, ZFSOnLinux and Open ZFS will agree on a way to stabilize the interface enough that innovation can happen without sacrificing old tools. Until then, living outside of Linus' tree will allow the system package manager to mitigate synchronization issues and is probably best for everyone.
Originally posted by Rallos Zek View PostNot impossible , just illegal to ship together.
It is not a GPL violation to ship a CDDL-licensed Linux kernel module. Plenty of people do it, including Oracle. It is a GPL violation to ship CDDL-licensed code linked into the Linux kernel binary. Few filesystems are shipped that way. I suspect that this is a problem for less than 1% of Linux users.
Originally posted by Ramiliez View PostWell SUN specifically designed CDDL to be incopatible with GPL
With that said, neither of us are lawyers. However, I find the idea that Sun created the GPL out of some irrational desire to avoid the GPL to be incredible given the negative consequences of licensing Open Solaris under the GPL.Last edited by ryao; 19 September 2013, 01:12 PM.
Comment
Comment