5 ms·

You can. ZOL does that. Blame the GPL plague-like principle.

by moviuro 11y ago

baq 11y ago
blame Sun and Oracle for releasing it under a license designed to be incompatible with GPL.
- bestham 11y ago
  According to Bryan Cantrill that is not at all accurate https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1364 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1364 * Edited for wrong link
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Listen to it and the whole point he is making is we had to make way for proprietary drivers and not to block it being compatible with GPL. Seem very much a grammar Judo to say we didn't go out of the way to be anti-compatible with GPL but we invented a copy left license so we could never be compatible with GPL.
    - bestham 11y ago
      Well how much work can you expect a for-profit-company to do in order to release their software as open source? They choose a licence that worked for them, then and there because of reasons. This included the work on ZFS. There are operating systems that have licences that permit the ZFS code in the kernel. What reasons did SUN have to specifically block the Linux kernel but not BSD / Darwin ? The choice of license has everything to do whit what license SUN was comfortable using and nothing to do with keeping GNU/Linux out of the party. If the answer is that a lot of their competitors at the time were invested in GNU/Linux and thus could not use their code, that is a very short sighted move.
      - baldfat 11y ago
        > Well how much work can you expect a for-profit-company to do in order to release their software as open source? A lot actually I expect them to make open source software and in all regards this has happened. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2914643/open-source-software/rise-and-rise-of-open-source.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2914643/open-source-softwar...
  - Fedjmike 11y ago
    Couldn't they have dual licensed it under both the CDDL and GPL? CDDL for when they distribute it with the closed drivers, then additionally distribute the source under the GPL allowing it to be used in Linux.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Probably not, since that would have allowed someone to add GPL-only code to it which couldn't be distributed with the whole. The video is very good and you can follow-up with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc
      - yrro 11y ago
        I don't understand; Sun would not have been obligated to accept contributions that were not similarly dual-licensed...
        protomyth 11y ago
        The same theory as the GPL, why allow people to use your work if you cannot use their additions in return?
csirac2 11y ago
Both are to blame. Neither are to blame. Much of the success of Linux has been attributed to the GPL. It certainly had a role to play in opening up WRT firmware. The truth is that the GPL is a pretty restrictive license. I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for the fact that it's not compatible with much. That's its defining feature and the main reason people choose it; so if it blocks ZoL, it's working as intended. Which I consider a great loss. ZFS is fantastic. I use the BSD 2-clause license on my own stuff, but I can think of situations where I'd rather use GPL.
- baldfat 11y ago
  There seems to be a ton of commercial and proprietary software and services on Linux with the GPL. Too many people just don't understand the GPL. If you make changes you must share the changes does not equal Plague Like. GPL is the most used and misunderstood license. It is more complicated now than I wish it was but it has given birth to so much. I prefer it to BSD or MIT due to the share a like nature of GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
  - dspillett 11y ago
    > If you make changes you must share the changes does not equal Plague Like. You don't even have to share the changes with the unwashed masses, or even the original author, just the people you sell/give the resulting program/service too. Of course they are free to distribute the changes more freely, the license explicitly states it is a breach for you to try block that, but you don't have to.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

You can. ZOL does that. Blame the GPL plague-like principle.

by moviuro 11y ago

You can. ZOL does that. Blame the GPL plague-like principle.

baq 11y ago

blame Sun and Oracle for releasing it under a license designed to be incompatible with GPL.

bestham 11y ago
According to Bryan Cantrill that is not at all accurate https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1364 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1364 * Edited for wrong link
- baldfat 11y ago
  Listen to it and the whole point he is making is we had to make way for proprietary drivers and not to block it being compatible with GPL. Seem very much a grammar Judo to say we didn't go out of the way to be anti-compatible with GPL but we invented a copy left license so we could never be compatible with GPL.
  - bestham 11y ago
    Well how much work can you expect a for-profit-company to do in order to release their software as open source? They choose a licence that worked for them, then and there because of reasons. This included the work on ZFS. There are operating systems that have licences that permit the ZFS code in the kernel. What reasons did SUN have to specifically block the Linux kernel but not BSD / Darwin ? The choice of license has everything to do whit what license SUN was comfortable using and nothing to do with keeping GNU/Linux out of the party. If the answer is that a lot of their competitors at the time were invested in GNU/Linux and thus could not use their code, that is a very short sighted move.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      > Well how much work can you expect a for-profit-company to do in order to release their software as open source? A lot actually I expect them to make open source software and in all regards this has happened. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2914643/open-source-software/rise-and-rise-of-open-source.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2914643/open-source-softwar...
- Fedjmike 11y ago
  Couldn't they have dual licensed it under both the CDDL and GPL? CDDL for when they distribute it with the closed drivers, then additionally distribute the source under the GPL allowing it to be used in Linux.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Probably not, since that would have allowed someone to add GPL-only code to it which couldn't be distributed with the whole. The video is very good and you can follow-up with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6XQUciI-Sc
    - yrro 11y ago
      I don't understand; Sun would not have been obligated to accept contributions that were not similarly dual-licensed...
      - protomyth 11y ago
        The same theory as the GPL, why allow people to use your work if you cannot use their additions in return?

csirac2 11y ago

Both are to blame. Neither are to blame. Much of the success of Linux has been attributed to the GPL. It certainly had a role to play in opening up WRT firmware. The truth is that the GPL is a pretty restrictive license. I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for the fact that it's not compatible with much. That's its defining feature and the main reason people choose it; so if it blocks ZoL, it's working as intended. Which I consider a great loss. ZFS is fantastic. I use the BSD 2-clause license on my own stuff, but I can think of situations where I'd rather use GPL.

baldfat 11y ago
There seems to be a ton of commercial and proprietary software and services on Linux with the GPL. Too many people just don't understand the GPL. If you make changes you must share the changes does not equal Plague Like. GPL is the most used and misunderstood license. It is more complicated now than I wish it was but it has given birth to so much. I prefer it to BSD or MIT due to the share a like nature of GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
- dspillett 11y ago
  > If you make changes you must share the changes does not equal Plague Like. You don't even have to share the changes with the unwashed masses, or even the original author, just the people you sell/give the resulting program/service too. Of course they are free to distribute the changes more freely, the license explicitly states it is a breach for you to try block that, but you don't have to.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.