5 ms·

ZFS is under the CDDL while Java is not under the CDDL. CDDL is an open-source licence just as the GPL.

• liotier 10y ago
  > CDDL is an open-source licence just as the GPL But incompatible with the GPL, which mostly explains the current situation of ZFS on Linux.
  • hhw 10y ago
    It's the GPL that's incompatible with the CDDL and not the other way around, which is an important distinction. Other than other GPL variants and BSD and MIT style licenses, the GPL has restrictions which make it pretty much incompatible with everything.
    • belorn 10y ago
      I don't get how the word "incompatible" can be understood as anything other than both license has aspects which makes combining them impossible. But owell, lets see what the license text actually say: Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License. If you distribute source code, this license means that you must use this license. You can't use some other license, as its not compatible with the distributor deciding what license to use. CDDL license require that any source code distribution use CDDL as its license, and it is incompatible with any other license that has similar condition. CDDL is incompatible with GPL because GPL has similar conditions as CDDL. If we were to make an identical copy of the CDDL license and call it CDDLv2, those two identical twins would be incompatible with each other. Software under CDDLv1 would not be permitted to be combined with software under CDDLv2 and distributed as source code.
      • cyphar 10y ago
        Actually, the CDDL allows the person who wrote the License (Sun, now Oracle) to release a new version of the license that implicitly updates the license for all projects using the old license (It's like the "or any later version" thing with the GPL, but I'm fairly sure it's not optional with CDDL). Which is why people are asking why Oracle doesn't just release CDDL 2.0 that is GPL compatible.
        • ryao 10y ago
          New CDDL code outside of Oracle is under CDDLv1 only to prevent them from doing as they please with the license terms.
          • cyphar 10y ago
            But ZFS is not under that other license (which might be called CDDLv1, but that's confusing). I don't get why new software uses the CDDL over the MPL if you want "file based copyleft". If you want copyleft, just use the GPL.
            • ryao 10y ago
              Not much new software uses the CDDL. Fans of CDDL software typically opt for BSD or Apache licenses.
      • ryao 10y ago
        > If we were to make an identical copy of the CDDL license and call it CDDLv2, those two identical twins would be incompatible with each other. Software under CDDLv1 would not be permitted to be combined with software under CDDLv2 and distributed as source code. There is a CDDL v1.1 that is effectively 's/Sun/Oracle/'. The CDDL has an optional clause saying any later version is allowed and the CDDL only applies at the file level. I have yet to see a problem in mixing CDDL code under v1 and v1.1 with each other.
        • belorn 10y ago