Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-04-17T16:02:56Z

> > That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
> > mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
> > to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
>
> CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like "CDDL
> is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and only) CDDL ?

>From what I have read, CDDL is treading the veeeerrrrrry thin line between
an actual Free license and an actual proprietary licence. Just look at the
nonsense Mozilla Co. has gotten itself worked up about (and judging by how
much Firefox/Iceweasel crashes on me, being like IE is quite appropriate
in licencing too). And (if I have not been misinformed), CDDL is inspired
by Mozilla's licence.

The FSF has something to say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
So yes, CDDL is, to me, "pseudo-"proprietary, and it would be very easy
for them to slip up and whoops! Didn't we tell you? You can do everything
but -that-. But of course it's still free...yeah...

> > I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
> > with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
> > moments, and made the right decision.
>
> I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I see
> (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses which
> provides more oppened (and not closed) code.

The GPL is more about protection than openness. Someone can write code,
throw it on the internet with no licence at all, and it's exactly as
"open" as it is under the GPL. You can do anything you want with it in any
way, just like under the GPL. What the GPL does is protect the code and
its writer from being snapped up by somebody else, and in any way
restricted: It makes sure the code STAYS open, and makes sure you are
always free to do as you like with it.