6 ms·

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

by bestham 11y ago

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?

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

by 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?