More DTrace envy
Posted Jul 3, 2008 14:33 UTC (Thu) by bcantrill
In reply to: More DTrace envy
Parent article: More DTrace envy
However pretending that legal uncertainty and explicitly distributing source code under GPL-incompatible terms aren't a (the) major issue, while claiming to want wider adoption of that code base under GNU/Linux and suggesting it isn't adopted because of NIH is just silly.
And now we have arrived at the central disconnect between us and the Linux community: we did not
open source Solaris to get "wider adoption of that code base under GNU/Linux"; we open sourced Solaris because of our own
business objectives, some of which I have previously described
. Contrary to the beliefs of some in the GNU/Linux community, GNU/Linux and GPL are not the beginning and end of open source, and as we have explained
, GPLv2 was not acceptable to us because we could not dictate licensing terms to in-kernel software writers, many of whom are 3rd parties who either will not or cannot relicense. Having an open source license that allowed for different license terms (including proprietary ones) was and is a constraint; allowing our technology to be ported to other operating systems was of secondary concern.
So there you have it: while we would welcome DTrace in Linux (and we will help and are helping those that would port it), it's not something we covet. If you want it, take it. If you don't, fine -- but know that many of your users would like to see you embrace the technology, and happen to care much more about solving their business problems than about legal arguments about why it's "impossible"...
to post comments)