5 ms·

The incompatibility was very much intended, Sun needed a way to compete with linux and didn't want to be assimilated into the linux ecosystem, so they released

The incompatibility was very much intended, Sun needed a way to compete with linux and didn't want to be assimilated into the linux ecosystem, so they released opensolaris under CDDL instead of GPL or MIT. Oracle haven't re-licensed it for their own reasons. Here is some more info on the subject: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

throw0101a 6y ago
> The incompatibility was very much intended Nope. Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, and the boss of Danese Cooper—who is the source of the claims it was intended—has stated it was not: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... Brian Cantrill, the co-author of Dtrace, has also stated that that they were expecting the Linux folks to potentially incorporate their work: * https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/31ny87#cq3bs9z https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/31ny87#cq3bs9z Do you have any citations that can corroborate the/your claim that incompatibility was intended? > Here is some more info on the subject: See also: * https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl...
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Do you happen to know where the claim that it was intended came from?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Because Danese Cooper said so. (See video link from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...) I think there's also a general suspicion that Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility. Although, for various reasons, it's probably at least somewhat more complicated than that because of patent protection, etc.
    - rleigh 6y ago
      "Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility." That's a very loaded statement. I've seen it said quite a lot over the years. But, have you thought about its implications? The implicit assumption here is the primacy of the GPL over all other open source licences. Why should other companies and organisations treat it as "more special" than any other free/open source licence when it comes down to interoperability? When it comes down to compatibility, the GPL is one of the last licences you should choose. Because by its very nature it is deliberately and intentionally incompatible with everything other than the most permissive licences. The problem with "viral" licences like the GPL is that "there can only be one" because they are mutually incompatible by nature. Why should the MPL/Apache/CDDL licences make special exemptions to lessen their requirements so that they can be GPL-compatible?
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I should have written compatibility with the GPL (or really the Linux kernel which was what was most relevant from the perspective of Solaris). And, of course, Sun could have chosen a fully permissive license but AFAIK nothing like that was seriously considered. Nit: Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 (but not v2).
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > I think there's also a general suspicion that Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility. There were 'technical' reasons why they did go not with GPL, and specifically GPLv2 (GPLv3 was not out yet). IIRC, they did consider waiting for GPLv3, but it was unknown when it would be out, and one thing they desired was a patent grant, which v2 does not have. Another condition was that they wanted a file-based copyright rather than a work-based copyright (i.e., applies to any individual files of ZFS as opposed to "ZFS" in aggregate). * https://nawilson.com/2007/12/02/why-the-dislike-for-cddl/ https://nawilson.com/2007/12/02/why-the-dislike-for-cddl/
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I had forgotten about some of the reasons they specifically wanted file-based copyright. Sun were clients at the time and I spoke fairly frequently with the open source folks there. But I didn't remember all the details and was certainly not privy to all the internal discussions.
thecureforzits 6y ago
I agree it was intended and I remember Sun talking about that intention at the time. Sun specifically removed the multiple license compatibility language (section 13) from the Mozilla MPL when creating the CDDL: https://web.archive.org/web/20060816050912/http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_MPL_redline.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20060816050912/http://www.sun.co...
- trasz 6y ago
  Interesting, given that the old MPL is GPL-incompatible too. How would it work anyway? It's not CDDL or MPL that causes the incompatibility, it's the GPL.

throw0101a 6y ago

> The incompatibility was very much intended Nope. Simon Phipps, Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time, and the boss of Danese Cooper—who is the source of the claims it was intended—has stated it was not: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#GPL_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib... Brian Cantrill, the co-author of Dtrace, has also stated that that they were expecting the Linux folks to potentially incorporate their work: * https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/31ny87#cq3bs9z https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/31ny87#cq3bs9z Do you have any citations that can corroborate the/your claim that incompatibility was intended? > Here is some more info on the subject: See also: * https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl...

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Do you happen to know where the claim that it was intended came from?
- ghaff 6y ago
  Because Danese Cooper said so. (See video link from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...) I think there's also a general suspicion that Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility. Although, for various reasons, it's probably at least somewhat more complicated than that because of patent protection, etc.
  - rleigh 6y ago
    "Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility." That's a very loaded statement. I've seen it said quite a lot over the years. But, have you thought about its implications? The implicit assumption here is the primacy of the GPL over all other open source licences. Why should other companies and organisations treat it as "more special" than any other free/open source licence when it comes down to interoperability? When it comes down to compatibility, the GPL is one of the last licences you should choose. Because by its very nature it is deliberately and intentionally incompatible with everything other than the most permissive licences. The problem with "viral" licences like the GPL is that "there can only be one" because they are mutually incompatible by nature. Why should the MPL/Apache/CDDL licences make special exemptions to lessen their requirements so that they can be GPL-compatible?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I should have written compatibility with the GPL (or really the Linux kernel which was what was most relevant from the perspective of Solaris). And, of course, Sun could have chosen a fully permissive license but AFAIK nothing like that was seriously considered. Nit: Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 (but not v2).
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > I think there's also a general suspicion that Sun could have just chosen the GPL if they cared about compatibility. There were 'technical' reasons why they did go not with GPL, and specifically GPLv2 (GPLv3 was not out yet). IIRC, they did consider waiting for GPLv3, but it was unknown when it would be out, and one thing they desired was a patent grant, which v2 does not have. Another condition was that they wanted a file-based copyright rather than a work-based copyright (i.e., applies to any individual files of ZFS as opposed to "ZFS" in aggregate). * https://nawilson.com/2007/12/02/why-the-dislike-for-cddl/ https://nawilson.com/2007/12/02/why-the-dislike-for-cddl/
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I had forgotten about some of the reasons they specifically wanted file-based copyright. Sun were clients at the time and I spoke fairly frequently with the open source folks there. But I didn't remember all the details and was certainly not privy to all the internal discussions.

thecureforzits 6y ago

I agree it was intended and I remember Sun talking about that intention at the time. Sun specifically removed the multiple license compatibility language (section 13) from the Mozilla MPL when creating the CDDL: https://web.archive.org/web/20060816050912/http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_MPL_redline.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20060816050912/http://www.sun.co...

trasz 6y ago
Interesting, given that the old MPL is GPL-incompatible too. How would it work anyway? It's not CDDL or MPL that causes the incompatibility, it's the GPL.