From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 6 18:56:13 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379B51065693 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:56:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61808FC13 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb34 with SMTP id 34so2133805wyb.13 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+4tgcTFayrZ3CrmpELDCm3/jzQWTN1SPy47JcsHTfQs=; b=mRFkVaeDNRlVVu6QrywN7WyyXp6Yd+UWupouyRftPDrvy2DxhVPKGtYgBThmVN5oCF fzqZYc38iPfMeAReOtBrr4aO3SdgKPZsRhj9X+Zsn0l6F+xLlI51Kjkqvk3WImV4Uw1H D50EvPkG+/Vut5mLB84YY2gurCXSb24GjiQW0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=YADMTxUPS4QHdGXRcIONlluX0mg6Kh/NMqygyNi76qz+YezNdCRx+8VsAEZUtCkCSa +NyRncb5hkjFMfOzYkfzplCMJd9TK0r/MhKgXQ6Df9rEwi5KV72Bls5kS294PJvQQMNI k8EXARfJrccFUMtnlszs0ekgIlIDFy4n0M8GM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.5.21 with SMTP id 21mr2570468wek.20.1289069771392; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.25.85 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:56:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: krad To: Alejandro Imass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:56:13 -0000 On 5 November 2010 22:19, Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:25:05PM +0100, Svein Skogen (Listmail accoun= t) > wrote: > >> > >> Well ... CDDL was (iirc) based on the Mozilla Public License. Are you > >> similarly worried about Thunderbird or Firefox? > > > > I think Alejandro's more worried about what will happen with future > > versions of ZFS based on the company that now owns the copyrights, whic= h > > is not (in any meaningful way I've been able to determine) at all simil= ar > > to the Mozilla Foundation. Yes, the current stable version is CDDL. > > Will the next be purely proprietary, or some new license, or simply > > discontinued? Will Oracle start using patent suits to try to stop peop= le > > who aren't paying for ZFS or who are using it on platforms other than > > Solaris from using it? > > > > Whether you think concerns like these will prove reasonable in the long > > run, they make a lot more sense than assuming that Alejandro just wonde= rs > > if the CDDL is "dangerous" somehow. > > > > Precisely. This is Larry Ellison's position on Open Source: > > > If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it. > [...] So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it =96 a > company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our > products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is > not disruptive at all =96 you have to find places to add value. Once > open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. [...] > We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source. > > Source: Financial Times interview, 18-Apr-2006 > http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=3Dfto041820061306424713 > > I am not about to check the actual licensing of ZFS, I mean to which > parts are actually licensed with the CDDL or not, for example the HTML > error message documents. Which patents Sun or Oracle have obtained on > the technology, etc. Look at what happened to Android for choosing > Java. Supposedly, it was Open Source and there you have it: it's open > source if and only if... For example, WyTF do I have to login to > Oracle to access the error message information? > > So, my inquiry to this community is: should we really be promoting the > use of ZFS directly by putting it on the FBSD handbook? Maybe it > should go on a different document, and make it really optional. MySQL > is another example, and Open Office, and to top it off BDB. Yes, it's > "Oracle Berkeley DB" - are we as a community continue to allow, and > worse yet promote, this trend? > > Anyway, I'm not going to use it any more. I think that we have to > raise awareness to Companies that create Open Source not sell > themselves out to these vicious looters. Or at least have the decency > to release one final version under a license that will allow the > communities to continue development and keeping the software really > open. > > Best, > Alejandro Imass > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > this thread shouldnt be limited to just zfs really, dtrace is also affected by all the same licensing issues