3 ms·

GPL is what leads to the ZFS-on-Linux problem. The clause, that prohibits ZFS from being combined with GPL, is in GPL.

saurik 6y ago
I mean, that's a nice story, but causality doesn't work like that... this is like a bully claiming someone "ran into their fist" :/. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ > We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux. Given Sun's goal, no matter what GPL said, I am sure that they would have figured out a cute way to engineer their license to be incompatible.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Perhaps it was, but it is very difficult to create a strong copyleft licence that is not the GPL that is compatible with the GPL, and that goes for any strong copyleft licence in every direction, so much so that GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. It's rare to find two strong copyleft licences that are compatible with each other — advocates of strong copyleft typically phrase their arguments as if there only be one strong copyleft licence in existence, as this is the major problem that is hard for them to overcome that is seldom sung.
- yakubin 6y ago
  "Bully"? As if people were supposed to specifically review licenses they create, whether they're compatible with every GPL clause. Nobody needs to care about GPL, it doesn't deserve special treatment. Other licenses not compatible with GPL: - Apache License (only version 2 is compatible and only with version 3 of GPL); - GPL (v2 vs v3), as other comments already mentioned. Are the authors of those licenses bullies? No. Nobody needs to care about your favourite flavour of copyleft.
  - samus 6y ago
    Well, if they want their code to be included in GPL software, for example the Linux kernel, then they have to care. If they don't care, then not :)

I mean, that's a nice story, but causality doesn't work like that... this is like a bully claiming someone "ran into their fist" :/. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ > We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux. Given Sun's goal, no matter what GPL said, I am sure that they would have figured out a cute way to engineer their license to be incompatible.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Perhaps it was, but it is very difficult to create a strong copyleft licence that is not the GPL that is compatible with the GPL, and that goes for any strong copyleft licence in every direction, so much so that GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. It's rare to find two strong copyleft licences that are compatible with each other — advocates of strong copyleft typically phrase their arguments as if there only be one strong copyleft licence in existence, as this is the major problem that is hard for them to overcome that is seldom sung.
yakubin 6y ago
"Bully"? As if people were supposed to specifically review licenses they create, whether they're compatible with every GPL clause. Nobody needs to care about GPL, it doesn't deserve special treatment. Other licenses not compatible with GPL: - Apache License (only version 2 is compatible and only with version 3 of GPL); - GPL (v2 vs v3), as other comments already mentioned. Are the authors of those licenses bullies? No. Nobody needs to care about your favourite flavour of copyleft.
- samus 6y ago
  Well, if they want their code to be included in GPL software, for example the Linux kernel, then they have to care. If they don't care, then not :)