| |||||||||||||
Uh?Uh?Posted Jun 8, 2010 22:21 UTC (Tue) by renox (subscriber, #23785)In reply to: Native ZFS Port for Linux (OSNews) by chithanh Parent article: Native ZFS Port for Linux (OSNews)
Your logic is weird: it doesn't matter which license's restrict the redistribution, what matter is the creation date of the license: the GPL was created far, far earlier than the CDDL.
So it's the author of the CDDL which made a license which is incompatible with the GPL(*), not the reverse: GPL's authors don't have a time machine..
* knowingly or not.
(Log in to post comments)
Uh? Posted Jun 16, 2010 8:04 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
GPL authors didn't need a time machine - they made GPL in a way that is incompatible with any license which is not a subset of GPL.
CDDL authors, on the other hand, didn't have much choice - they could either license it as BSD (which means no copyleft), or GPL (which would prevent it from being used in anything but Linux), or make special exception for GPL, like e.g. Mozilla does. Except that making exception to be compatible with something that was created to be incompatible looks little weird, doesn't it?
Uh? Posted Jun 16, 2010 8:45 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Sorry but that is not true. There are dozens and dozens of GPL compatible licenses and choices are not limited to BSD. If you want limited copyleft, LGPL is a valid choice.
Uh? Posted Jun 16, 2010 9:18 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Whether or not you want to believe that Sun vexaciously chose the CDDL with "Ensure Linux can't grab the code!" as a goal, you are leaping beyond the bounds of rationality if you ignore the fact those with knowledge of the decision have stated there were at least some other important and independent considerations.
Anyway.. Divide and conquer - except the *Nix community always manages to do this to itself, allowing others to conquer.
|
|||||||||||||