OpenZFS Launches To Promote Open-Source ZFS

[jayrulez]

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.

So X predates GPL and is near EOL according to some people yet it has not been "jailed" (turned into a proprietary project that killed the open source project) as some people would put it . This is proof that a GPL license is not necessary for the longevity of a project. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?

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.

Is that so? Corporations have a hand in the development of most important FOSS projects today. Linux, GCC, Clang, LLVM, Wayland, X, Mesa and many others get a significant portion of their contributions from corporations.

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.

[Vim_User]

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.

Feel free to start coding 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.

Feel free to start coding a GPL-ed Mesa replacement.

[benmoran]

Interesting. Could you elaborate, please?

http://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.

[erendorn]

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.

[Ramiliez]

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

[prodigy_]

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.

[xeekei]

Btrfs will continue to live. IMHO Btrfs has a much better design than ZFS.

Interesting. Could you elaborate, please?

[johnc]

Not impossible , just illegal to ship together.

Yeah... but nobody can really explain why. "Because the FSF says so" seems like a substandard argument.

[Rallos Zek]

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.

[johnc]

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.