From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 6 04:44:32 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 21FBD106566B for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 04:44:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steven@too1337.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BD28FC0C for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 04:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so2730167ywh.13 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.12.9 with SMTP id 9mr140998anl.19.1289018670579; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macmini.susnet (ip68-99-10-223.om.om.cox.net [68.99.10.223]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w3sm2413193anw.5.2010.11.05.21.44.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CD4DD2C.1090407@too1337.com> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 23:44:28 -0500 From: Steven Susbauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4CD45A11.7060002@stillbilde.net> <20101105213433.GC8648@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 04:44:32 -0000 On 11/5/10 5:19 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > 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 – 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 – 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=fto041820061306424713 It sounds like he's probably a big fan of the BSD license. I do not see how this is a bad thing, other than he uses potentially inflammatory words like "exploit." The basics of what he says are exactly what Red Hat has done from the beginning, and Apple with OS X. Note he says "take it for nothing," he is not referring to buying companies but the practice of including/distributing this software and providing support for the entirety. > 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? Android uses the Java language, but this is not what that suit is about. Oracle claims the Dalvik VM infringes on their patents. If Android was using the Java VM there would be no lawsuit. Sun was able to successfully sue Microsoft for similar reasons in 1997 (incomplete implementation of the Java standard). Somehow people continued using Java, despite this.