3 ms·

To make a license GPL-compatible, it needs to be a subset of GPL. Which means, to make ZFS GPL-compatible, Sun would need to ditch patent protection, among oth

by trasz 6y ago

To make a license GPL-compatible, it needs to be a subset of GPL. Which means, to make ZFS GPL-compatible, Sun would need to ditch patent protection, among other things. That would create real problems for everyone, while not really helping ZFS on Linux - Linux devs would simply find another excuse; case in point is AdvFS.

toyg 6y ago
I don't think AdvFS ever reached the level of community buy-in that ZFS has. A lot of people in Linux land really like ZFS, IMHO both demand and supply to sustain an in-kernel ZFS is there already. > ditch patent protection [...] would create real problems for everyone What problem, exactly?
- trasz 6y ago
  The problem is the risk of being sued into oblivion by Oracle. Which currently doesn't exist thanks to CDDL patent protection clauses.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Are you arguing that users of MIT/BSD licensed software the world over are "at risk" of being sued by the copyright holder for patent infringement...? Big if true.
    - trasz 6y ago
      MIT/BSD it’s the same as GPL in this aspect; it’s CDDL that’s different by providing patent protection.
      - toyg 6y ago
        yes, so you're saying MIT/BSD licenses should be considered at risk of lawsuits for patent infringement (presumably from the same copyright holder that released the code in the first place)? If that were a realistic threat, most F/OSS projects should shut down tomorrow. The patent-protection clauses of the CDDL are at odds with the spirit and practice of open licenses anyway, since they are voided as soon as the relevant code is modified. So basically, the cddl ships clauses that are pointless and likely to be disregarded in practice and in court. Losing them would make no difference whatsoever.
        trasz 6y ago
        Again, BSD/MIT is the same as GPL in that aspect. It’s not a problem for the open source projects themselves, as there’s no point in suing them. It can be a problem for high profile downstream users. The CDDL clauses are not voided when the code is modified. Where did you get that idea? What you are saying is plain fantasy.

by trasz 6y ago

toyg 6y ago

I don't think AdvFS ever reached the level of community buy-in that ZFS has. A lot of people in Linux land really like ZFS, IMHO both demand and supply to sustain an in-kernel ZFS is there already. > ditch patent protection [...] would create real problems for everyone What problem, exactly?

trasz 6y ago
The problem is the risk of being sued into oblivion by Oracle. Which currently doesn't exist thanks to CDDL patent protection clauses.
- toyg 6y ago
  Are you arguing that users of MIT/BSD licensed software the world over are "at risk" of being sued by the copyright holder for patent infringement...? Big if true.
  - trasz 6y ago
    MIT/BSD it’s the same as GPL in this aspect; it’s CDDL that’s different by providing patent protection.
    - toyg 6y ago
      yes, so you're saying MIT/BSD licenses should be considered at risk of lawsuits for patent infringement (presumably from the same copyright holder that released the code in the first place)? If that were a realistic threat, most F/OSS projects should shut down tomorrow. The patent-protection clauses of the CDDL are at odds with the spirit and practice of open licenses anyway, since they are voided as soon as the relevant code is modified. So basically, the cddl ships clauses that are pointless and likely to be disregarded in practice and in court. Losing them would make no difference whatsoever.
      - trasz 6y ago
        Again, BSD/MIT is the same as GPL in that aspect. It’s not a problem for the open source projects themselves, as there’s no point in suing them. It can be a problem for high profile downstream users. The CDDL clauses are not voided when the code is modified. Where did you get that idea? What you are saying is plain fantasy.