4 ms·
I think you got it backwards, the massive inconvenience for everyone is that Linux is using the GPL and people don't want to have to deal with all the re-licens
by Sleaker 11y ago
I think you got it backwards, the massive inconvenience for everyone is that Linux is using the GPL and people don't want to have to deal with all the re-licensing compatibility bullshit just to be able to distribute a binary of some other FOSS. seriously, CDDL is FSF/OSI approved.
Sure, Oracle could resolve it by switching to a GPL compatible license, but the problem is not oracle's clearly free software. The problem is GPL forcibly does not allow perfectly fine open source licensed software to be distributed in binary form due to it's copyleft.
- davexunit 11y agoThe GPL is not to blame here, it's doing its job.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> seriously, CDDL is FSF/OSI approved. ...as is the GPL, which is also written by the FSF. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying this. Many FSF/OSI-approved licenses are not pairwise-compatible with each other. It's not limited to either the GPL or the CDDL. > but the problem is not oracle's clearly free software. The problem is as much Oracle as it is Linux. Especially since, as noted in other comments, the CDDL was created specifically to be incompatible with Linux's license. > The problem is GPL forcibly does not allow perfectly fine open source licensed software to be distributed in binary form due to it's copyleft. This isn't an accurate description either of the GPL or of the incompatibility at play here.
- mh8h 11y agoI agree, many of the open source licenses are not pairwise-compatible. But the fact that GPL is a strong copyleft license makes collaboration more difficult. And the idea that CDDL was made specifically to be incompatible with GPL is at best a speculation. See Bryan Cantrill's video about the history of Solaris [0] and about different licenses [1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm8P4oCIY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm8P4oCIY3g
- chimeracoder 11y ago> But the fact that GPL is a strong copyleft license makes collaboration more difficult. The problem is that both the GPL and the CDDL prevent further restrictions to the license. This actually has very little to do with the copyleft; plenty of other licenses (including the CDDL) prevent further restrictions on redistribution, even without imposing a copyleft.
- geofft 11y agoGPL is "clearly free software" too, and FSF/OSI approved too. The problem is that the GPL and the CDDL both have no-further-restrictions clauses, as mentioned in the article: > 6. …You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > 3.4 … You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License The situation would be exactly the same if, say, Linux were under the CDDL and ZFS were under the 4-clause BSD license, or the OpenSSL license, or Creative Commons, or the MPL 1.0, or whatever. The GPL and the CDDL both have exactly the same "problem" here.
- mioelnir 11y agoIf both licenses only had no-further-restrictions clauses, they would be perfectly fine. The issue is the imposing of further restrictions, which only the GPL has in this case. And if no-further-restrictions clauses are evil and have to go, well, then the GPL's no-further-restriction clause has to go as well.
- Dylan16807 11y agoWhen two licenses do similar things and are incompatible, it's the project that chose the rare license that deserves the blame for inconvenience.