3 ms·

"But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't

"But most startups (unfortunately) don't care about software freedom." I think most startups do care, and have cared. And even if some didn't, then I wouldn't want to introduce any potential for them to be forced on the issue with a lawsuit. What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? Surely ZFS would have seen broader adoption if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL?

cyphar 10y ago
> I think most startups do care, and have cared. Maybe since I'm not in that space, that's why I haven't have seen that. > What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? I am sad that Sun decided to make a GPL-incompatible license. However, a better question is "would there be proprietary ZFS forks if ZFS wasn't under a copyleft license". I can think of at least one company that would have such a fork and that alone is worth not making it permissively licensed. Same argument goes for DTrace, which has been ported to several proprietary operating systems (but you can get their modified versions of DTrace). At the same time, the CDDL isn't as strong as it should be but it's inconvenient enough that practically most companies won't bother to make a proprietary fork. Overall, while it sucks for the GNU/Linux community IMO the net benefit for free software is greater (you can use illumos or even FreeBSD which incldues ZFS). > if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL? I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel. The translation layer definitely would be, but nobody could seriously think a project almost as old as Linux and developed completely separately would be classified as a "derivative work" of Linux. DTrace is a separate topic.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  "I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on this, and this was the opinion of many, including Richard Stallman. He stated there was no way that ZFS could be bundled with a Linux distribution without infringing on the GPL. Ubuntu sought separate legal opinion and concluded differently. They are now shipping ZFS as part of their distribution. I think this is an example of why some people are averse to the GPL. Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. Users of GPL'd software will never be sued. It's developers and distributors that choose to create software using components with conflicting licenses. In my opinion, the benefits for users far outweigh the annoyances of developers. The reason Richard Stallman presumably claims that ZFS is a derivative work is because otherwise the strength of the GPL would be perceived as being weaker. It was a political play IMO, not one from the standpoint of ethics. Though, it would be fair to say that if you create a translation layer for Linux that would be a derivative work of Linux but because of how it would be used it would also require licensing ZFS under the GPL (because the two pieces of software are intricately linked). So it's possibly true that there would be an effective violation of the GPL. > I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses. On the other hand, users are also not protected from developers or distributors creating modified versions of your work that are not free software. I guess that could be called the "protection of freedom" argument in favour of stronger copyleft licenses.

cyphar 10y ago

> I think most startups do care, and have cared. Maybe since I'm not in that space, that's why I haven't have seen that. > What do you think of the ZFS/Linux licensing issue? I am sad that Sun decided to make a GPL-incompatible license. However, a better question is "would there be proprietary ZFS forks if ZFS wasn't under a copyleft license". I can think of at least one company that would have such a fork and that alone is worth not making it permissively licensed. Same argument goes for DTrace, which has been ported to several proprietary operating systems (but you can get their modified versions of DTrace). At the same time, the CDDL isn't as strong as it should be but it's inconvenient enough that practically most companies won't bother to make a proprietary fork. Overall, while it sucks for the GNU/Linux community IMO the net benefit for free software is greater (you can use illumos or even FreeBSD which incldues ZFS). > if not considered a derivative of the kernel by the GPL? I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel. The translation layer definitely would be, but nobody could seriously think a project almost as old as Linux and developed completely separately would be classified as a "derivative work" of Linux. DTrace is a separate topic.

jorangreef 10y ago
"I don't think anyone thinks of ZFS as a derivative work of the Linux kernel." Yes, I wouldn't have thought so either, but the legal technicalities hinged on this, and this was the opinion of many, including Richard Stallman. He stated there was no way that ZFS could be bundled with a Linux distribution without infringing on the GPL. Ubuntu sought separate legal opinion and concluded differently. They are now shipping ZFS as part of their distribution. I think this is an example of why some people are averse to the GPL. Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > Right-spirited use of GPL software could risk exposure to a lawsuit. Users of GPL'd software will never be sued. It's developers and distributors that choose to create software using components with conflicting licenses. In my opinion, the benefits for users far outweigh the annoyances of developers. The reason Richard Stallman presumably claims that ZFS is a derivative work is because otherwise the strength of the GPL would be perceived as being weaker. It was a political play IMO, not one from the standpoint of ethics. Though, it would be fair to say that if you create a translation layer for Linux that would be a derivative work of Linux but because of how it would be used it would also require licensing ZFS under the GPL (because the two pieces of software are intricately linked). So it's possibly true that there would be an effective violation of the GPL. > I guess this could be called the "ten foot pole" argument in favor of more permissive licenses. On the other hand, users are also not protected from developers or distributors creating modified versions of your work that are not free software. I guess that could be called the "protection of freedom" argument in favour of stronger copyleft licenses.