4 ms·

Very nice guy! I will remember him for his CDDL flames and my invitation for him to answer the CDDL/GPL debate over at the brand new SE OSS site right at the l

by cnst 5y ago

Very nice guy! I will remember him for his CDDL flames and my invitation for him to answer the CDDL/GPL debate over at the brand new SE OSS site right at the launch in 2015, which he gladly accepted. I vaguely recall making this question explicitly for him to answer, seeing that he was already on the site, and me needing a total of 10 QA entries to get an Area51 badge for a follow-through on the launch of the site as a founding member. He didn't disappoint and provided a great answer! He was not shy of having a good argument and defending the position he thought was correct even if such position was extremely unpopular and futile to have and to defend: https://archive.is/4JzAE https://archive.is/4JzAE https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/are-cddl-and-gpl-really-incompatible https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/are-cddl... Very sad to learn he's gone. RIP.

bombcar 5y ago
It's unfortunate that we'll probably never get a legal answer to the question from any authority - but it appears that more and more people are considering them to be "compatible enough" - see Ubuntu shipping ZFS in the default image.
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  It boils down to being a contractual dispute, and until the stakeholders decide to spent the millions of dollars to battle it in courts, it'll remain an unanswered question. Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. The real risk comes from OpenZFS, where the majority of the copyright is held by Oracle (formerly Sun). Oracle is an evil, evil organization in regards to IP, so I can only assume their reason for not taking action is 1) it's not worth their time or 2) they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it before they can spring their trap.
  - lproven 5y ago
    > they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it > before they can spring their trap I don't think they can any more. The principle of laches applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) This is why Microsoft's threats against the Linux desktop in around 2007 failed: the IP that they claimed, the Windows 95 desktop look and feel -- Start menu, taskbar etc. -- is stuff that Microsoft 100% did invent, but 12 years later is... Well, _the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ was published 42 years ago today, and it still rings true. To quote Chapter 3 of the Guide: "You've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." ZFS has been included in Ubuntu since 16.04. Oracle has known and has had five years to raise an objection. It has not done so. It is now too late, by the principle of laches. It may try, of course, but the lawsuit should be pretty brief because the defense is right there: why didn't Oracle file a complaint in 2016?
    - AceJohnny2 5y ago
      Thanks, good to know!
  - AceJohnny2 5y ago
    > Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. I should highlight that this is the reason the FSF has the "copyright assignement" clause, because they understand well that without it, the GPL is hard to enforce. Sadly, such a clause has been co-opted by other companies to give them the power of relicensing the software under more closed terms.

by cnst 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago

It's unfortunate that we'll probably never get a legal answer to the question from any authority - but it appears that more and more people are considering them to be "compatible enough" - see Ubuntu shipping ZFS in the default image.

AceJohnny2 5y ago
It boils down to being a contractual dispute, and until the stakeholders decide to spent the millions of dollars to battle it in courts, it'll remain an unanswered question. Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. The real risk comes from OpenZFS, where the majority of the copyright is held by Oracle (formerly Sun). Oracle is an evil, evil organization in regards to IP, so I can only assume their reason for not taking action is 1) it's not worth their time or 2) they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it before they can spring their trap.
- lproven 5y ago
  > they're waiting until a big wealthy organization depends on it > before they can spring their trap I don't think they can any more. The principle of laches applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) This is why Microsoft's threats against the Linux desktop in around 2007 failed: the IP that they claimed, the Windows 95 desktop look and feel -- Start menu, taskbar etc. -- is stuff that Microsoft 100% did invent, but 12 years later is... Well, _the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ was published 42 years ago today, and it still rings true. To quote Chapter 3 of the Guide: "You've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." ZFS has been included in Ubuntu since 16.04. Oracle has known and has had five years to raise an objection. It has not done so. It is now too late, by the principle of laches. It may try, of course, but the lawsuit should be pretty brief because the defense is right there: why didn't Oracle file a complaint in 2016?
  - AceJohnny2 5y ago
    Thanks, good to know!
- AceJohnny2 5y ago
  > Of course, the difficulty of many GPL projects is in identifying the stakeholders, and getting them to agree on action. I should highlight that this is the reason the FSF has the "copyright assignement" clause, because they understand well that without it, the GPL is hard to enforce. Sadly, such a clause has been co-opted by other companies to give them the power of relicensing the software under more closed terms.