ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux? • Hacker News Board

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#11

Post by floe » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

parvenu74 wrote: post #6

"Pessimistic" is a good generalization of the GPL mindset in my opinion: "If I don't make this thing GPL then some greedy-bastard company will make a fortune off of my ideas and never give me a cut, credit, or contribute back." Maybe, but it's a dim way of looking at other people.

It's certainly a dim way of looking at corporations, but, oh well. I don't think they deserve better.

And I think GPL actually embodies a really positive mindset. To release GPL code is to believe that there are others out there who will help you without intending to get advantage over you or shut you out.

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#12

Post by AlexMax » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

mikece wrote: post #4

Makes me wonder how long it will be before a license is codified that is as permissive as BSD/MIT/Apache2 but specifically prohibits using the code in copyleft code bases. The question has been posed elsewhere: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6234/is-there...

What would be the point?

Copyleft licenses ensure that the code itself remains open source. MIT-style licenses ensures that a developer can use the code without encumbrance. And there are already plenty of licenses out there that are incompatible with the GPL through other conflicting terms - non-commercial licenses come to mind.

What would be the goal of an anti-copyleft license other than to stick it to copyleft projects?

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#13

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#14

Post by towaway1138 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 11:19 PM UTC

Not sure why anyone is in "terror". ZFS cannot be legally used with Linux. That's been clear almost from the start.

It's dead. At best it might have a few useful ideas to put into our live filesystems.

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#15

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

Of course Linux benefitted from being published under GNU GPL. At that point of time the appearance of a GNU kernel for i386 architecture was inevitable

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#16

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

towaway1138 wrote: post #14

Not sure why anyone is in "terror". ZFS cannot be legally used with Linux. That's been clear almost from the start. It's dead. At best it might have a few useful ideas to put into our live filesystems.

[deleted]

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#17

Post by apple4ever » Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 1:42 AM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #7

>Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL! > >This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others disagree. And even if it was verifiably true: What about Open Source values? Since when is the GPL the only acceptable Open Source license? Lots of hand-waving and false equivalency here. We're not talking about "Open Source values", we're talking specifically about the Linux kernel…

Being tired is not a good reason.

They need to stop being so stubborn.

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#18

Post by apple4ever » Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #5

No new territory is covered in this article. It's a lot of words that skips over the central question: are CDDL and GPL incompatible and if so what does that mean for the user? The article addresses this the wrong way: >Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL! Doesn't matter whether it's deliberate or not. And it's not merely one opinion, it's GNU, FSF, SFC, Debian, Fedora - quite a lot I'm not going…

Except for the evidence of making calls GPL only, for no legal or technical reason.

All they have to do is allow the calls. (Its a silly restriction anyway).

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#19

Post by apple4ever » Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 1:45 AM UTC

Iolaum wrote: post #8

parvenu74 wrote: post #6

"Pessimistic" is a good generalization of the GPL mindset in my opinion: "If I don't make this thing GPL then some greedy-bastard company will make a fortune off of my ideas and never give me a cut, credit, or contribute back." Maybe, but it's a dim way of looking at other people.

Remember that GPL is a product of the realities around the open source ecosystem when Bill Gates and Steve Balmer where CEOs on Microsoft. Moreover the situation with some android OEMs that don't provide source code for their devices shows that this is still happening today.

That was 20 years ago.

It’s clear the GPL hurts open source. It’s why I’ve never liked it.

Re: ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

#20

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

Iolaum wrote: post #8

parvenu74 wrote: post #6

"Pessimistic" is a good generalization of the GPL mindset in my opinion: "If I don't make this thing GPL then some greedy-bastard company will make a fortune off of my ideas and never give me a cut, credit, or contribute back." Maybe, but it's a dim way of looking at other people.

Remember that GPL is a product of the realities around the open source ecosystem when Bill Gates and Steve Balmer where CEOs on Microsoft. Moreover the situation with some android OEMs that don't provide source code for their devices shows that this is still happening today.

> Remember that GPL is a product of the realities around the open source ecosystem when Bill Gates and Steve Balmer where CEOs on Microsoft.

The irony being that formerly FOSS companies are turning to dual licensing, "open core", and similar non-free strategies because it turned out that Gates & Ballmer, y'know, like, actually had a point: you need income in order to keep your business running.

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway: GPLv1 came out in '89 and GPLv2 came out in '91. Microsoft was a relatively minor player at that time; its meteoric rise to dominance didn't begin until a few years later.