From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 5 22:19:58 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 120EB106564A for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:19:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aimass@yabarana.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 A61CA8FC18 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb34 with SMTP id 34so1580941wyb.13 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:19:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.127.142 with SMTP id g14mr2569119wbs.200.1288995595929; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: aimass@yabarana.com Received: by 10.227.145.133 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:19:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> References: <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 18:19:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iYCL2fVq0EBaWFHXudvlgAWmYjk Message-ID: From: Alejandro Imass To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:19:58 -0000 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 account)= 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, which > is not (in any meaningful way I've been able to determine) at all similar > to the Mozilla Foundation. =A0Yes, the current stable version is CDDL. > Will the next be purely proprietary, or some new license, or simply > discontinued? =A0Will 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 wonders > 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