Matt Aitkenhead wrote:> I see that you have wasted no time. I''m still determining if you have a sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an axe to grind. The latter is shining through. > > Regards, > Matt >Hi Matt, I''d like to make our correspondence in public if you don''t mind so my intention isn''t mistaken. My point wasn''t at all to grind an axe. 1) That''s no way to encourage a company which is already scared of open source to even think about releasing patches. (Sun''s marketing isn''t stupid.. they did this because it''s good for them) 2) I am sincerely interested in your product (as others seem to be as well) Code review, increased testing and viral marketing are all typically good things. Anyway, hope this clears things up. Cheers, ./C
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM, "C. Bergstr?m" <cbergstrom at netsyncro.com>wrote:> Matt Aitkenhead wrote: > > I see that you have wasted no time. I''m still determining if you have a > sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an axe to grind. > The latter is shining through. > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > Hi Matt, > > I''d like to make our correspondence in public if you don''t mind so my > intention isn''t mistaken. My point wasn''t at all to grind an axe. > > 1) That''s no way to encourage a company which is already scared of open > source to even think about releasing patches. (Sun''s marketing isn''t > stupid.. they did this because it''s good for them) > 2) I am sincerely interested in your product (as others seem to be as well) > > Code review, increased testing and viral marketing are all typically > good things. Anyway, hope this clears things up. > > Cheers, > > ./C >ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require derivative works to be open source. It''s truly free like the BSD license in that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed. They are not forced to share their code. That''s why there are "closed" patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris. While you may not like it, this isn''t the GPL. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20081006/b9e91b12/attachment.html>
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Tim wrote:> ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require > derivative works to be open source. It''s truly free like the BSD license inIt doesn''t, but changes made to CDDL-licensed files must be released (under the CDDL).> that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed.Nope. Others can take CDDL code, develop new code (in other source files), and keep the new code secret, but they must publish the source code to any changes they make to CDDL-ed files.> They are not forced to share their code. That''s why there are "closed" > patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris.The closed code will be in separate files to those covered by the CDDL. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM, "C. Bergstr?m" <cbergstrom at netsyncro.com > > wrote: > Matt Aitkenhead wrote: > > I see that you have wasted no time. I''m still determining if you > have a sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an > axe to grind. The latter is shining through. > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > Hi Matt, > > I''d like to make our correspondence in public if you don''t mind so my > intention isn''t mistaken. My point wasn''t at all to grind an axe. > > 1) That''s no way to encourage a company which is already scared of open > source to even think about releasing patches. (Sun''s marketing isn''t > stupid.. they did this because it''s good for them) > 2) I am sincerely interested in your product (as others seem to be aswell)> > Code review, increased testing and viral marketing are all typically > good things. Anyway, hope this clears things up. > > Cheers, > > ./C > > ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not > require derivative works to be open source. It''s truly free like > the BSD license in that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and > keep the content closed. They are not forced to share their code. > That''s why there are "closed" patches that go into mainline Solaris, > but are not part of OpenSolaris. > > While you may not like it, this isn''t the GPL. >Tim, I am not a lawyer, yet that is not how I understand it. Sun is not required to publish source patches because they own the code and grant the license. They are free to sell, ship or do whatever they want with the code. On the other hand, company X if they use the source and deliver executables are required by the license (that gives them access to the code in the first place) give source code. See below for the relevant section in the CDDL. -Wade 3.1. Availability of Source Code. Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. 3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions. You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered Software under the terms of this License or under the terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipient?s rights in the Source Code form from the rights set forth in this License. If You distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a different license, You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.
Tim <tim at tcsac.net> wrote:> ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require > derivative works to be open source. It''s truly free like the BSD license in > that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed. > They are not forced to share their code. That''s why there are "closed" > patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris.The CDDL requires to make modifications public.> While you may not like it, this isn''t the GPL.The GPL is more free than many people may believe now ;-) The GPL is unfortunately missunderstood by most people. The GPL allows you to link GPLd projects against other code of _any_ other license that does not forbid you some basic things. This is because the GPL ends at the "work limit". The binary in this case is just a container for more than one work and the license of the binary is the aggregation of the requirements of the licenses in use by the sources. The influence of the CDDL ends at file level. All changes are covered by the copyleft from the CDDL. The influence of the BSD license ends at line level. The original code remains under the BSD license but you may add new code under a different license. Note that all "GPL enhanced" BSD code I am aware of violates the GPL as GPL section 2 a) requires that every change has to be logged by author and date _inline_ in the changed file. Do you know of any such code where is is possible to track down which part of the code is from the GPLd "enhancements"? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:>> While you may not like it, this isn''t the GPL. > > The GPL is more free than many people may believe now ;-) > > The GPL is unfortunately missunderstood by most people.The GPL is missunderstood due the profusion of confusing technobabble such as you provided in your explanation. Regardless, the Green Bytes CDDL issue is between the copyright holder (Sun) and Green Bytes and is no concern of ours. The actual changes to existing source modules may be on the order of a few lines of code, or potentially no change at all. Bob =====================================Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:> > The GPL is unfortunately missunderstood by most people. > > The GPL is missunderstood due the profusion of confusing technobabble > such as you provided in your explanation.If you don''t understand it, just don''t comment it ;-) J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Joerg Schilling wrote:> Tim <tim at tcsac.net> wrote: > > >> ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require >> derivative works to be open source. It''s truly free like the BSD license in >> that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed. >> They are not forced to share their code. That''s why there are "closed" >> patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris. >> > > The CDDL requires to make modifications public. > > > > >> While you may not like it, this isn''t the GPL. >> > > The GPL is more free than many people may believe now ;-) > > The GPL is unfortunately missunderstood by most people. > > The GPL allows you to link GPLd projects against other code > of _any_ other license that does not forbid you some basic things. > This is because the GPL ends at the "work limit". The binary in this > case is just a container for more than one work and the license of > the binary is the aggregation of the requirements of the licenses > in use by the sources. > > > The influence of the CDDL ends at file level. All changes are covered by > the copyleft from the CDDL. >My apologies to Matt as I didn''t expect so much noise over the issue, but mostly for things to be clarified more clearly. If anything positive can still come from this let us know. ./C