On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL. I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux. I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa), but I'm even more happy that Linux isn't. <--- I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
Not proprietary software? Not "open source" licenses that don't allow modification (which is also proprietary)? The GPL? The thing that gave us free software in the modern world? Well, that's certainly one opinon.
> On the other hand, I have nothing against CDDL.
The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.
> I think the incompatibility of CDDL with the GPL is what saved the illumos community (even if inadvertently) from having their technology cannibalized by GNU and Linux.
What are you talking about? Why do you care if GNU/Linux takes your code and modifies it? No damage is done to the original.
> I'm happy that BSD is benefitting from illumos (and vice versa)
Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).
> I do not represent anyone but myself, the position expressed here is my own and not of anyone else.
Your position is also wrong.
This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork. When BSD/MIT/(other permissively licensed code) is used, modified, and re-licensed to GPL, the permissive project can't take those improvements without also re-licensing. The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it. It's not just about what code is out there, and you should know that.
>Actually, because CDDL is somewhat-but-not-really copyleft, many BSDs essentially have copyleft requirements if you enable ZFS or DTrace. Which is funny, given how much they go on about "freedom to make proprietary software" (something I'm against).
Only in regard to changes to DTrace and ZFS. Still totally fine to build proprietary versions of BSDs that include those pieces.
I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom". It's nice to have source as a developer, but my motivation has never been "freedom", insofar as using and understanding the software, so I understand where he's coming from in his complaints about the GPL. As a developer, it's more constraining than the permissive licenses out there. To some, that's a good thing.
> This is more about the fact that when they take it it's worse for the project than a proprietary fork.
... Who is it worse for? First of all, that almost never happens. But for users, there's no difference (if anything it's an improvement because they now have better protection of their freedom) and the original developers can just ignore the fork or merge the code and change license (which isn't possible with a proprietary fork).
> The CDDL indeed saved illumos from being cannibalized and disappearing as a community. Had its features been easily ported to Linux without a licencing problem, the project would probably not have survived, simply due to the fact that there would have been few reasons to stick with it.
I think that's a very irrational fear. GNU/Linux took plenty of BSD code and BSD still exists, many different projects take ideas from each other -- it's what's called "collaboration".
> I won't go so far as the grandparent post here, but I'm one of those developers that couldn't give half a care about "user freedom".
It's disappointing that you don't want to actually make the world a better place (not in the standard bullshit silicon valley sense) by giving people freedom.
"Nope—the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out.
Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back." — Theo de Raadt, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt
The GPL actively reduces freedom.
Are you kidding me? The Linux rabble will happily take what they want and discard the rest like a rotten carcas, with fanfare all the way how "Linux is the best!" Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want a superior operating system to be discarded for that steaming pile of excrement after the Linux "developers" swipe every good piece of technology from it.
> It's disappointing that you don't want to actually make the world a better place (not in the standard bullshit silicon valley sense) by giving people freedom.
We do (well, I do), just in a world without GNU and without GPL. That is a better world for me.
Self-righteous much?
This is embarrassing.
Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D)
GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!)
http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want...
GNU / GPL: DO NOT WANT!
> Your position is also wrong.
Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it.
And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free.
But not under the GPL license.
Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
> Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D)
Including someone taking my software, making it proprietary and mistreating users. I would prefer that less people use my code than someone doing that.
> GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!)
Wow, so much vitriol for a license that actually created the world we live in today. I'm slightly impressed by how much you hate a license that gives users perpetual freedom. Also, why do you think that CDDL's weak copyleft is better than GPL? I understand, but don't agree with, people who hate copyleft altogether -- but you only hate the GPL.
> Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it.
You can dual-license modifications to GPL code. I think doing that is dumb, but you can do it.
> And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free.
It's so sad that you don't ever want to make contributions to a large body of free software.
> Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.
I know its a free software license. I'm just saying it's a bad free software license. The original BSD license was also a bad free software license (requiring you to add a line to all advertising about the source project).
Yes, and since that world is the world of GNU/Linux, it sucks, because compared to illumos and SmartOS, GNU/Linux is a vastly inferior product in terms of capabilities, performance, end to end data integrity, post mortem analysis, as well as storage, day to day system administration, and development capabilities.
I don't want to live in a world with those kinds of "freedoms". I don't want to live in a world where people who do not have enough experience, or do not care break my applications because they constantly mess with the core OS functionality in a way which breaks or fundamentally changes things, arbitrarily, because they can't see past their lone desktop personal computers, but they think they can, and they think they know what needs to be done. I don't want to live in a world where the core OS functionality like startup and shutdown is still in violent flux, along with everything else. If it weren't for GNU, if it weren't for GPL, we would not have the world we have right now. The situation is bad, so very, very bad.
I want to live in a world where my data is safe, where my operating system provides a solid foundation of end to end data integrity and guarantees me backwards compatibility so I can build good, reliable software, and when that software needs troubleshooting, I have all the tools I need to perform effective telemetry analysis. That world is a world without GNU/Linux, a world where SmartOS is the substrate and illumos is the kernel, and where I, and not the FSF, hold (sometimes joint) copyright to the work I did.
If I had it my way, copyright law would be completely abolished, making all of this license nonsense completely pointless, and it would be survival of the best coder / company: if you are really so good, beat me at my own game, like it has always been on the cracking and the demo scenes.
> I'm slightly impressed by how much you hate a license that gives users perpetual freedom. Also, why do you think that CDDL's weak copyleft is better than GPL? I understand, but don't agree with, people who hate copyleft altogether -- but you only hate the GPL
GPL license attempts to dictate to me what and how I am to do with my own code I write ("you must license all derived work under the GPL").
I do not accept that, even if I firmly believe that open sourcing software is the right thing to do, and believe that open source, free software is the way to go.
No, that's a pretty standard severability clause that helps the user. It means that if one section of the CDDL is found invalid, users can still use the software. The GPL on the other hand, by refusing to have a severability clause, means that if any part of the GPL, no matter how inconsequential, is found invalid, the entire license is null and void and no one can use it. That intentional omission makes the GPL a much more user-hostile license than it should be.
> No, that's a pretty standard severability clause that helps the user. It means that if one section of the CDDL is found invalid, users can still use the software. The GPL on the other hand, by refusing to have a severability clause, means that if any part of the GPL, no matter how inconsequential, is found invalid, the entire license is null and void and no one can use it. That intentional omission makes the GPL a much more user-hostile license than it should be.
The GPL's severability clause says that the section is invalid, not the whole license. But the CDDL allows for the license to be changed after the fact.
I was incorrect in remembering what the CDDL had if a clause is found to be unenforceable. A reform clause has a lot of overlap with severability. While a contract can be altered in such a case, reform means that the spirit of the unenforceable clause must remain intact. Were it severable, then the entire clause would be excised, potentially altering the license much more through omission.
