3 ms·

Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. It's not us being bitter, I just don't understand why we should get out

Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. It's not us being bitter, I just don't understand why we should get out of our way to accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be on Linux. Personally, I'd rather see more resources poured into bcachefs[1]. 1 - https://bcachefs.org https://bcachefs.org

throw0101a 8y ago
> Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. [citation needed] Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... The only person who has made this claim is Danese Cooper, and she has been directly contradicted by her boss at the time (Phipps). (Improving bcachefs, or whatever, is independent of the CDDL question.)
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: Of course he did. There's nothing to gain from admitting it. It's the sort of statement akin to 'Facebook deeply values your privacy', as in of course they're going to say that. On the other hand, submitting the license to the OSI, but not the FSF to be consulted on compatibility before using it suggests otherwise.
  - throw0101a 8y ago
    Per Phipps in September 2006, a few months after DebConf (July 2006): """ > > It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on > the CDDL > issues. Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement. """ * https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 Cooper is, AFAICT, the only one that made the claim: was it ever corroborated by anyone else? Phipps and Cantrill dispute it: are/were there others? Edit: it seems that not even GPLv3 (which they considered) is not compatible with GPLv2 (which Linux uses), so even if they did that it would be a problem. One main thing (IIRC) that was of concern was patent license grants.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > are/were there others? From your own quote: > She, along with many actual engineers
      - throw0101a 8y ago
        The "she, along with many actual engineers" is referring to the desire for GPL; I do not doubt there were. The "are/were there others?" is asking for corroboration on the claim that CDDL was designed specifically to be incompatible with GPL. The CDDL-GPL drama seems to be one of an attitude of "fuck-ZFS because fuck-Sun/Oracle and their fucking CDDL license". The validity of the claim that the design of CDDL was 'malicious' is the thing I am skeptical about. It may have ended up incompatible because of technical-legal reasons, but was that the intent? Cooper says yes, Phipps/Cantrill say no.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        Sun did submit the license to the OSI for consultation/approval. It could very well have consulted the FSF/FSC, but they did not. This to me suggests they did not care about GPL compatibility.

throw0101a 8y ago

> Sun decided a long time ago it does not want it to be part of Linux, as per its license. [citation needed] Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... The only person who has made this claim is Danese Cooper, and she has been directly contradicted by her boss at the time (Phipps). (Improving bcachefs, or whatever, is independent of the CDDL question.)

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, has stated this is not the case: Of course he did. There's nothing to gain from admitting it. It's the sort of statement akin to 'Facebook deeply values your privacy', as in of course they're going to say that. On the other hand, submitting the license to the OSI, but not the FSF to be consulted on compatibility before using it suggests otherwise.
- throw0101a 8y ago
  Per Phipps in September 2006, a few months after DebConf (July 2006): """ > > It would be a critical mistake to underestimate her knowledge on > the CDDL > issues. Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she claims. She, along with many actual engineers, was an advocate of using GPL for OpenSolaris but the need to release rather than wait for one of {GPL v3, Mozilla license revision, encumbrance removal} meant that this was not possible. I am still furious with her for the statement she made at DebConf, which was spiteful and an obstacle to a united FOSS movement. """ * https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 https://marc.info/?l=opensolaris-discuss&m=115740406507420 Cooper is, AFAICT, the only one that made the claim: was it ever corroborated by anyone else? Phipps and Cantrill dispute it: are/were there others? Edit: it seems that not even GPLv3 (which they considered) is not compatible with GPLv2 (which Linux uses), so even if they did that it would be a problem. One main thing (IIRC) that was of concern was patent license grants.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > are/were there others? From your own quote: > She, along with many actual engineers
    - throw0101a 8y ago
      The "she, along with many actual engineers" is referring to the desire for GPL; I do not doubt there were. The "are/were there others?" is asking for corroboration on the claim that CDDL was designed specifically to be incompatible with GPL. The CDDL-GPL drama seems to be one of an attitude of "fuck-ZFS because fuck-Sun/Oracle and their fucking CDDL license". The validity of the claim that the design of CDDL was 'malicious' is the thing I am skeptical about. It may have ended up incompatible because of technical-legal reasons, but was that the intent? Cooper says yes, Phipps/Cantrill say no.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        Sun did submit the license to the OSI for consultation/approval. It could very well have consulted the FSF/FSC, but they did not. This to me suggests they did not care about GPL compatibility.