5 ms·

I was thinking of this thread from 5.0 in particular (2019, time flies!) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/a

• Nextgrid 3y ago
  It’s sad to see that free software under a license (and movement) that was born out of someone’s frustration with closed-source printer drivers (acting as DRM, albeit inadvertently) appears to include similar DRM whose sole purpose is to restrict usage of a (seemingly arbitrary) selection of symbols.
  • tux3 3y ago
    It is. That said, I can't fault people too much for being afraid of the lawnmower. People have been mowed for much less.
• ilyt 3y ago
  So, why OpenZFS can't fix their license ?
  • toast0 3y ago
    OpenZFS is a fork of the Sun/Oracle release of ZFS. The OpenZFS maintainers cannot change the license without consent of the copyright owners, and Oracle is unlikely to consent. Oracle could potentially change the terms in a future release of CDDL, and that might work, too. Similarly, Linux probably has too many contributors, some of which are no longer living, to come to an agreement on a fixed license either. Although, license changes do happen; OpenSSL did one recently, but I think there are fewer contributors.
    • cromka 3y ago
      > OpenSSL did one recently VLC did, too, although with probably even less contributors.
  • wkat4242 3y ago
    Because it uses code released by Sun under the CDDL. Oracle has since closed sourced the whole thing again so they're not going to change the license of this old code, they don't even want it out there but they can't take it back. Doing a clean room rewrite would be a huge job.