6 ms·

> Unfortunately, most of the OSS/Free Software world is running a Linux kernel whose license (GPLv2) isn't compatible with the CDDL according to current thinkin

by bch 11y ago

> Unfortunately, most of the OSS/Free Software world is running a Linux kernel whose license (GPLv2) isn't compatible with the CDDL according to current thinking by most of the people who know about these things. This[0] is one of the more interesting reviews of this I've seen in a long time, including what seems like a footnote about dtrace at the end that I thought was a shocker. [0] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl...

hackcasual 11y ago
Yeah, anyone saying this is a cut and dry matter doesn't really have a true appreciation for how murky legal waters can get.
shiftoutbox 11y ago
Why must it be relicensed . Why not let it just be . Can the Linux people stop trying to tell everyone that everything needs to be gpl'ed or gpl compatible. It's like a 3 year old wining about how they can't get a second cookie .
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  I don't think you appreciate the complexities of copyright law as codified in the Berne convention, etc. (I hate it too, but that's no excuse to just ignore it.) EDIT: Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you. Apologies.
  - shiftoutbox 11y ago
    I work with a guy who has cddl'd his project . He likes the license ; I don't nag him to change it to an isc license . He has his reasons for the cddl, I might not agree with all of it but I am great full he open sourced it . If sun /oracle didn't open source zfs or dtrace we would be all be using Solaris and paying to use it . So if FreeBSD , NetBSD , illumos have a properly compatable licenses for zfs . Embrace that ; if you don't want to, check out dragonflybsd and hammerfs, look at btree on Linux , check out openbfs on haiku . I can't stress this enough Canonical is a shitty company who needs to make waves to stay relevant . I don't know why anyone uses their crap . Wait I remember they are a commercial company with a marketing department who gets paid to polish that turd . What was so bad about Debian ? If you don't like Debian Why not give a a bsd a try . Hell why not just try Smart os and a lx-branded zone . You get zfs , dtrace , and all of the ful of full Linux comparability .
    - akulbe 11y ago
      Why do you say that about Canonical?
    - lomnakkus 11y ago
      > He has his reasons for the cddl, What are those reasons, concretely? Would he be better served by choosing e.g. a BSD variant? There's a non-trivial cost to choosing a "not-completely-understood" license. Or, equivalently, there's value in choosing a well-known "standard" license. While the CDDL should probably be classified as "well-known" at this point, its interaction with other licenses isn't, and -- unless you're actively working against GPL-ish licenses -- it's to be avoided. You can get what what you want by chosing a BSD-esque license instead. I think I agree with many of your other points, though. As I say, I'm not a lawyer and not overly fond of licensing in the first place. (Still doesn't mean you can ignore this concern, unfortunately! If only ignorance of the law were an excuse!) EDIT: If you're going to downvote, please explain. I don't care about the numbers, but I would like to know why my argument is wrong/misguided.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        CDDL has nice properties. And really it's just an improvement on the MPL 1.0. There are good reasons to choose the CDDL (it's a file-based not work-based copyleft so the implications with stuff like linking are clear). It just really bothers me that we have licenses which restrict you from combining two works to create a new works that provides more guarantees of freedom than one of them. It's frustrating that by creating free software we now have different factions because we can't use other's free software.
    - vacri 11y ago
      How quickly we forget that Ubuntu tries to make things as user-friendly as possible. Debian does a decent job, but it's still rough around the edges in the desktop world. The BSDs aren't exactly friendly for non-techies either. Frankly, you're an elitist, who doesn't care about the use-cases of anyone but technical experts. For most users, the type of filesystem in use does not matter, nor does access to dtrace.
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  Physician heal thyself. It would be optimal if this could be made more clearly gpl compatible as the current owner has a compelling interest in Linux as they now offer their own distro. That said nobody is whining just wishing.
  - Sir_Substance 11y ago
    In general, I think it would be most optimal if technical decisions didn't hinge on legal restrictions. GPL makes this less likely because of its absolutionist stance.
    - ewzimm 11y ago
      It's funny, but you're unintentionally perpetuating what's becoming the new stereotype. Now that the GPL has become mainstream, it's the anti-GPL people who come off as extreme. I'm not saying you're an extremist, but the GPL is not always the root of the problem. In this case, it's a mutual incompatibility. This is just as much about the CDDL's restrictions as it is the GPL. The CDDL was created after the GPL, and it was an intended incompatibility. The GPL could have been the MIT license and the CDDL might have included a "cannot be distributed with MIT-licensed software" clause. The point is that now that nobody has an interest in keeping ZFS out of Linux, it's time to relicense! That's all there is to it.
    - assocguilt 11y ago
      What about Turing and all the other guys that have done and still do great work? Should we end their careers because some of their work is secret? That's just un-australian.
      - Sir_Substance 11y ago
        Prove you're a Turing, and there's no problem. Of course, you can't, which is why you're still following me months later posting impotent comments. I'm staggered how deep this bit, I really must have hit a nerve.

by bch 11y ago

hackcasual 11y ago

Yeah, anyone saying this is a cut and dry matter doesn't really have a true appreciation for how murky legal waters can get.

shiftoutbox 11y ago

Why must it be relicensed . Why not let it just be . Can the Linux people stop trying to tell everyone that everything needs to be gpl'ed or gpl compatible. It's like a 3 year old wining about how they can't get a second cookie .

lomnakkus 11y ago
I don't think you appreciate the complexities of copyright law as codified in the Berne convention, etc. (I hate it too, but that's no excuse to just ignore it.) EDIT: Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you. Apologies.
- shiftoutbox 11y ago
  I work with a guy who has cddl'd his project . He likes the license ; I don't nag him to change it to an isc license . He has his reasons for the cddl, I might not agree with all of it but I am great full he open sourced it . If sun /oracle didn't open source zfs or dtrace we would be all be using Solaris and paying to use it . So if FreeBSD , NetBSD , illumos have a properly compatable licenses for zfs . Embrace that ; if you don't want to, check out dragonflybsd and hammerfs, look at btree on Linux , check out openbfs on haiku . I can't stress this enough Canonical is a shitty company who needs to make waves to stay relevant . I don't know why anyone uses their crap . Wait I remember they are a commercial company with a marketing department who gets paid to polish that turd . What was so bad about Debian ? If you don't like Debian Why not give a a bsd a try . Hell why not just try Smart os and a lx-branded zone . You get zfs , dtrace , and all of the ful of full Linux comparability .
  - akulbe 11y ago
    Why do you say that about Canonical?
  - lomnakkus 11y ago
    > He has his reasons for the cddl, What are those reasons, concretely? Would he be better served by choosing e.g. a BSD variant? There's a non-trivial cost to choosing a "not-completely-understood" license. Or, equivalently, there's value in choosing a well-known "standard" license. While the CDDL should probably be classified as "well-known" at this point, its interaction with other licenses isn't, and -- unless you're actively working against GPL-ish licenses -- it's to be avoided. You can get what what you want by chosing a BSD-esque license instead. I think I agree with many of your other points, though. As I say, I'm not a lawyer and not overly fond of licensing in the first place. (Still doesn't mean you can ignore this concern, unfortunately! If only ignorance of the law were an excuse!) EDIT: If you're going to downvote, please explain. I don't care about the numbers, but I would like to know why my argument is wrong/misguided.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      CDDL has nice properties. And really it's just an improvement on the MPL 1.0. There are good reasons to choose the CDDL (it's a file-based not work-based copyleft so the implications with stuff like linking are clear). It just really bothers me that we have licenses which restrict you from combining two works to create a new works that provides more guarantees of freedom than one of them. It's frustrating that by creating free software we now have different factions because we can't use other's free software.
  - vacri 11y ago
    How quickly we forget that Ubuntu tries to make things as user-friendly as possible. Debian does a decent job, but it's still rough around the edges in the desktop world. The BSDs aren't exactly friendly for non-techies either. Frankly, you're an elitist, who doesn't care about the use-cases of anyone but technical experts. For most users, the type of filesystem in use does not matter, nor does access to dtrace.
michaelmrose 11y ago
Physician heal thyself. It would be optimal if this could be made more clearly gpl compatible as the current owner has a compelling interest in Linux as they now offer their own distro. That said nobody is whining just wishing.
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  In general, I think it would be most optimal if technical decisions didn't hinge on legal restrictions. GPL makes this less likely because of its absolutionist stance.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    It's funny, but you're unintentionally perpetuating what's becoming the new stereotype. Now that the GPL has become mainstream, it's the anti-GPL people who come off as extreme. I'm not saying you're an extremist, but the GPL is not always the root of the problem. In this case, it's a mutual incompatibility. This is just as much about the CDDL's restrictions as it is the GPL. The CDDL was created after the GPL, and it was an intended incompatibility. The GPL could have been the MIT license and the CDDL might have included a "cannot be distributed with MIT-licensed software" clause. The point is that now that nobody has an interest in keeping ZFS out of Linux, it's time to relicense! That's all there is to it.
  - assocguilt 11y ago
    What about Turing and all the other guys that have done and still do great work? Should we end their careers because some of their work is secret? That's just un-australian.
    - Sir_Substance 11y ago
      Prove you're a Turing, and there's no problem. Of course, you can't, which is why you're still following me months later posting impotent comments. I'm staggered how deep this bit, I really must have hit a nerve.