Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
More DTrace envyMore DTrace envyPosted Jul 3, 2008 16:13 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: More DTrace envy by paulj Parent article: More DTrace envy
Some of the Linux copyright holders are dead. Some have merely vanished. One of them's a company that tried to kill Linux a few years ago. In some cases we probably don't even have a solid idea who the copyright holder is. Changing the license isn't a real possibility. (The last time the license changed was in 1992, when it probably was possible to identify everyone who'd contributed any code to Linux using a single person's fingers. Since then Linus has clarified what his interpretation of the license is at various points, but these clarifications aren't binding)
(Log in to post comments)
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 18:02 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] ISTR some kind of brouha, discussed on LWN I think, not so long ago about Linus changing the Linux copyright to exclude the possibility of upgrading its GPLv2 to GPLv3 (it was claimed he hadn't actually changed the licence, but that wasn't accepted all? I dont quite remember).
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 18:11 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Huh, nm. You covered the GPLv2 clarification. My bad for not reading.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 18:04 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Oh.. dead copyright holders either have successors in interest, or else they don't matter, is what I suspect a lawyer would tell me.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 18:31 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] Indeed, my understanding is that the copyright will generally end up with whoever holds the estate. That doesn't make it easy to track them down.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 19:18 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] I bet there are ways to solve this problem, such as publicising a proposed change and asking for objections. Perhaps the law has already dealt with cases where some minority of copyright holders in a collective work can't be found and/or don't take an interest... It's not Suns' problem though..
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 19:33 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] I agree - it's unfortunate for Linux that Sun chose a license that the GPL is incompatible with, but they were entirely within their rights to do so. My only objection is to the repeatedly raised "Linux people hate dtrace for irrational reasons" type claims. Linux vendors feel they can't ship dtrace for justifiable legal reasons, which means that there's little incentive to work on the technical details. Whatever NIH tendencies the Linux community may have, they're not the reason for ignoring dtrace.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 21:32 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] No, it's not Sun's problem. Unfortunately, it's not Linux's problem either -- the GPLv2 was written 15 years before the CDDL. It's a mutual problem. The Linux team is unable to modify the Linux Kernel's license, and the DTrace team sounds quite unwilling to amend/modify/dual license DTrace, so I guess we're at an impasse. Can anything be done?
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 21:51 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] I'm sure we could find licences which predate the GPL which also would *not* have served OpenSolaris. E.g. Solaris engineering has a fairly strong BSD background and you can bet that licence was at least mentioned.. So, sorry, that's just a daft argument.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 3, 2008 22:55 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Hm, I don't understand. What is a daft argument? That it's a mutual problem? That combining CDDL and GPL code appears to be at an impasse?
|
|||||||||||||