| |||||||||||||
More DTrace envyMore DTrace envyPosted Jul 6, 2008 11:10 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341)In reply to: More DTrace envy by drag Parent article: More DTrace envy
You're the second person to have misread my (I thought fairly clear) comment, so I guess I need to reply and clarift: I specifically said that *your* opinion of Suns' motivations in choosing the CDDL was largely irrelevant (not least because motivations, even when generally acknowledged, aren't that relevant). Next (sorry to restate, but its important to the coherence of this post) you have been given several reasonable, practical and good reasons why the GPLv2 would not have been acceptable to Sun, regardless of Suns' motivations towards Linux, namely: - Sun did not want to dictate to ISVs that they must GPL their code. (This one you have heard directly from Bryan) - Sun does not want licence-forking (to cover any rebuttal to the previous point of "so use LGPL", as the LGPL can be converted to GPL, and ignoring the fact that the LGPL is far from pretty) - The GPLv2 is out of date with regard to patents. That Sun added patent cross-licensing+MAD terms to CDDL suggests this may have been a factor. (Why it applies only to CDDL? I've no idea.. I suspect there may be legal, technical difficulties in drafting the language to have many other licences - particularly with regard to the 'MAD' aspect of the CDDL patent language. Can you provide a pointer to the grants you refer to? Be interesting to read). Next, ignoring the above and if we accept your argument: Exactly how did you develop this massive sense of entitlement that you think it is your automatic right to Suns' code on licensing terms favourable to your chosen OS? I'm a Free Software Foundation supporter and I always understood that the ethical reasoning for companies to choose the free software was out of respect for their *users*... Finally, can you tell me with a straight face that had Sun chosen the GPL but it had chosen the GPLv3 (imagining the GPLv3 had existed), that you'd then not be complaining here today about Suns' choice of licence? Even though it too is incompatible with Linux to the *same extent* as the CDDL is (namely: it'd require linux copyright holders to agree to update the Linux not-quite-GPLv2 licence)?
(Log in to post comments)
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 7, 2008 2:39 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Forgive me, but the argument appears to be about whether CDDL-licensed can be used in Linux, or specifically GPL-licensed works. You started by saying:Licences being incompatible is a moot, philosophical matter...and: Look, the CDDL appears to be absolutely fine with copyright holders of GPL works incorporating CDDL software and distributing it.However this next quote is curious given your views: Exactly how did you develop this massive sense of entitlement that you think it is your automatic right to Suns' code on licensing terms favourable to your chosen OS?With the last quote, it looks like you agree that the CDDL and GPL aren't compatible. You object to people arguing *why* Sun chose the license. Fine. But you very much appear to give legitimacy to those not wishing to mix the licenses together.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 7, 2008 9:48 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] You have deliberately omitted the statements immediately following the ones you've quoted which qualify those quotes. The first quote is particularly out of context, as the qualifying statement is in the same sentence: "... if no one thinks the infringment matters.". That's quite trollsome behaviour, something I would not have expected from an LWN subscriber.
More DTrace envy Posted Jul 7, 2008 17:22 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Ignoring your attacks, myself and some others here obviously think infringement matters. That's kind of the point... It's also ironic that you've gone out of your way to condemn others for thinking they know why Sun chooses the licenses it does, yet you consider it a deliberate attempt to troll when someone points out what appears to be inconsistency in your logic. By all means, disagree with my point if I am wrong but don't pretend you're taking the high road.
|
|||||||||||||