4 ms·
That would have consequences reaching far beyond ZFS. A blastzone which no one will be able to oversee. I would therefor say it is extremely unlikely any compa
by jsiepkes 5y ago
That would have consequences reaching far beyond ZFS. A blastzone which no one will be able to oversee.
I would therefor say it is extremely unlikely any company (let alone Oracle) would ever sign-off on such a thing.
- pabs3 5y agoPS: I didn't think CDDL was used much outside of Solaris (now proprietary again and the forks of it aren't active I thought) and OpenZFS. Are there other significant CDDL licensed codebases?
- jsiepkes 5y ago> Solaris (now proprietary again and the forks of it aren't active I thought) The Solaris forks (based on Illumos[1]) such as SmartOS[2] are pretty active! > Are there other significant CDDL licensed codebases? A lot of the Java stuff was also CDDL licensed. Though some of that (larger projects such as OpenJDK) were already dual licensed with "GPLv2 + classpath exception". I also doubt it was used much outside of Sun. But even it's just the Sun stuff I still think no corporation would ever dare to make such a license update. [1] https://www.illumos.org/ https://www.illumos.org/ [2] https://wiki.smartos.org/ https://wiki.smartos.org/
- pabs3 5y agoIts a pretty simple way to achieve compatibility between CDDL and other license spheres, which can only be a good thing really, personally I consider that incompatibility to have been a mistake that didn't really help anyway. Achieving compatibility is unlikely something Oracle cares about though, so the license situation isn't going to change anyway. BTW, they have relicensed things under the GPL before (IIRC ZFS for grub and ISTR something around dtrace), so they aren't adverse to it.