5 ms·

Seems like this a pretty nice read-only filesystem. Shame that it can't be used much commercially in many cases due to GPLv3 license. This could improve so man

Seems like this a pretty nice read-only filesystem. Shame that it can't be used much commercially in many cases due to GPLv3 license. This could improve so many embedded systems currently using SquashFS.

isr 4y ago
Well, if you want to build a commercial product using dwarfs, you could always (shock, horror) contact the dev and *pay* him to license it to you under a bsd-like license (or whatever). (the dwarfs dev would have to work it out amongst all who contributed to his repo)
- vardump 4y ago
  Who said I'd want (or need) to use it in a product? What I'm saying is that due to the license fewer companies want to use and thus we're getting a bit worse products as a consequence. Of course I completely agree the developer should get licensing income (heck, that's in my self interest as well!), but what's going to really happen is that the cheapo companies just make do with less and use SquashFS or whatever instead. It's a tragedy of commons there's so little will to donate for or crowdsource open source projects and that they're taken for granted.
  - fps_doug 4y ago
    > It's a tragedy of commons there's so little will to donate for or crowdsource open source projects and that they're taken for granted. Which is not made better by your sentiment? I mean GPL at least forces you to either try negotiating a different license with the author (for money ideally), or suck it and use something inferior. Using a permissive license that allows multi-billion dollar companies to use your code for free certainly doesn't help changing the mind set of "open source is other people working for me for free".
    - vardump 4y ago
      "I mean GPL at least forces you to either try negotiating a different license with the author (for money ideally)" Sounds great in theory, but even for a popular open source library developer this happens so rarely that it rarely pays the bills regardless of license. "Using a permissive license that allows multi-billion dollar companies" Most embedded devices by far are not developed by multi-billion dollar companies. Their legal departments are also actively steering away from GPL licenses. "try negotiating a different license" In my experience, by far the most companies don't want to negotiate anything. If there's a product with a set price, yes, then it might be purchased. They typically also want some kind of product support with it. "use your code for free certainly doesn't help changing the mind set of "open source is other people working for me for free"." How to solve this? Ideally the library developer would get paid AND the consumers get more value for their money. This would encourage more developers to write useful libraries that provide great value in the big picture, but are uneconomical or otherwise too much trouble to deal with on an individual company or product level. As it is, everyone seems to lose.
      - fps_doug 4y ago
        This is all true, but how do you think a more permissive license would improve things for open source authors? Maybe there is a miscommunication here, but how is a company more likely to give you money if you release under MIT oder BSD?
synergy20 4y ago
it's not in standard linux kernel(unlike squashfs) plus it is less field tested comparing to squashfs, more importantly I too avoid GPLv3 in any commercial product. Anything GPLv3 will be off my check-out list for anything immediately because I honestly don't know what GPLv3 really means to me. I use GPLv2 cautiously wherever it fits as I feel at least I know what it implies.
- palata 4y ago
  Doesn't it "just" say that on top of providing the sources of the binaries you distribute, you must provide/document a way to update them?
Dylan16807 4y ago
By "can't be used" do you mean by unjustified whiners, or is there a real problem? If you're including this existing filesystem you shouldn't have any relevant patents to worry about, and the clause about letting the user write their own firmware shouldn't be an issue for 99% of products. Is there anything else I missed in the differences between v2 and v3?
- freemint 4y ago
  The clause about letting the user write their own firmware is a huge issue for 99% of products. Use some vendor blob -> problem. Have some NDA for registers used in some hardware -> problem. Hardware does not have user firmware flashing -> problem. Legal compliance requirements for hardware bearing your name -> problem.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Use some vendor blob -> problem. Have some NDA for registers used in some hardware -> problem. That's the same as GPLv2. If you don't mix the filesystem into your proprietary code, you don't have to reveal any of those things. > Hardware does not have user firmware flashing -> problem. GPLv3 only requires you to let the user have the same flashing ability you have. If it can't be flashed, you don't have to do anything. > Legal compliance requirements for hardware bearing your name -> problem. That's a 1% of products situation.

isr 4y ago

Well, if you want to build a commercial product using dwarfs, you could always (shock, horror) contact the dev and *pay* him to license it to you under a bsd-like license (or whatever). (the dwarfs dev would have to work it out amongst all who contributed to his repo)

vardump 4y ago
Who said I'd want (or need) to use it in a product? What I'm saying is that due to the license fewer companies want to use and thus we're getting a bit worse products as a consequence. Of course I completely agree the developer should get licensing income (heck, that's in my self interest as well!), but what's going to really happen is that the cheapo companies just make do with less and use SquashFS or whatever instead. It's a tragedy of commons there's so little will to donate for or crowdsource open source projects and that they're taken for granted.
- fps_doug 4y ago
  > It's a tragedy of commons there's so little will to donate for or crowdsource open source projects and that they're taken for granted. Which is not made better by your sentiment? I mean GPL at least forces you to either try negotiating a different license with the author (for money ideally), or suck it and use something inferior. Using a permissive license that allows multi-billion dollar companies to use your code for free certainly doesn't help changing the mind set of "open source is other people working for me for free".
  - vardump 4y ago
    "I mean GPL at least forces you to either try negotiating a different license with the author (for money ideally)" Sounds great in theory, but even for a popular open source library developer this happens so rarely that it rarely pays the bills regardless of license. "Using a permissive license that allows multi-billion dollar companies" Most embedded devices by far are not developed by multi-billion dollar companies. Their legal departments are also actively steering away from GPL licenses. "try negotiating a different license" In my experience, by far the most companies don't want to negotiate anything. If there's a product with a set price, yes, then it might be purchased. They typically also want some kind of product support with it. "use your code for free certainly doesn't help changing the mind set of "open source is other people working for me for free"." How to solve this? Ideally the library developer would get paid AND the consumers get more value for their money. This would encourage more developers to write useful libraries that provide great value in the big picture, but are uneconomical or otherwise too much trouble to deal with on an individual company or product level. As it is, everyone seems to lose.
    - fps_doug 4y ago
      This is all true, but how do you think a more permissive license would improve things for open source authors? Maybe there is a miscommunication here, but how is a company more likely to give you money if you release under MIT oder BSD?

synergy20 4y ago

it's not in standard linux kernel(unlike squashfs) plus it is less field tested comparing to squashfs, more importantly I too avoid GPLv3 in any commercial product. Anything GPLv3 will be off my check-out list for anything immediately because I honestly don't know what GPLv3 really means to me. I use GPLv2 cautiously wherever it fits as I feel at least I know what it implies.

palata 4y ago
Doesn't it "just" say that on top of providing the sources of the binaries you distribute, you must provide/document a way to update them?

Dylan16807 4y ago

By "can't be used" do you mean by unjustified whiners, or is there a real problem? If you're including this existing filesystem you shouldn't have any relevant patents to worry about, and the clause about letting the user write their own firmware shouldn't be an issue for 99% of products. Is there anything else I missed in the differences between v2 and v3?

freemint 4y ago
The clause about letting the user write their own firmware is a huge issue for 99% of products. Use some vendor blob -> problem. Have some NDA for registers used in some hardware -> problem. Hardware does not have user firmware flashing -> problem. Legal compliance requirements for hardware bearing your name -> problem.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Use some vendor blob -> problem. Have some NDA for registers used in some hardware -> problem. That's the same as GPLv2. If you don't mix the filesystem into your proprietary code, you don't have to reveal any of those things. > Hardware does not have user firmware flashing -> problem. GPLv3 only requires you to let the user have the same flashing ability you have. If it can't be flashed, you don't have to do anything. > Legal compliance requirements for hardware bearing your name -> problem. That's a 1% of products situation.