>>>>> "js" == Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes:
>> GPLv3 might help with NetApp <-> Oracle pact while CDDL does
>> not.
js> GPLv3 does not help at all with NetApp as the CDDL already
js> includes a patent grant with the maximum possible
js> coverage.
AIUI CDDL makes a user safe from Sun's patents only. If NetApp
contributed code under CDDL, then it would make users safe from NetApp
patents applying to code netapp contributed, but NetApp didn't
contribute any code so it does nothing. no surprises here: Sun tries
to prevent competitors from making poison contributions, which is
something we should all do but is ``making the implicit grant
explicit''.
GPLv3 was a response to the patent pact made between Novell and
Microsoft, which if it had worked would have made Linux unfree and
given control of it to Microsoft and Novell, because one would need to
buy a license from Novell to use Linux, and Microsoft could have
participated in nsetting terms for that license whoucl could be quite
elaborate like when RSA forced people to use the RSAREF library
implementation of RSA to benefit from the limited patent grant, so
these patent licenses have been used in the past not only to charge
people who have source but also to take away software freedom from
people who have source---their elaborateness can become really
nefarious. The GPLv3 attempted-protection mechanism is: if Novell
negotiates any patent indemnity, it must apply to all users not just
Novell's users. This is exactly what we should want to stay free in
the shadow of the NetApp <-> Oracle deal, but I don't understand the
legal mechanism that accomplishes it. However I don't see anything
remotely like this in CDDL and am pretty sure although not 100% sure
that I don't see it because it isn't there.
Unfortunately I do not understand it further, and I'm trying to limit
the number of times I repeat myself, so welcome back to my killfile
and please feel free to take the last word, but I'll only point out
that I feel my understanding is more thorough than yours, Joerg, yet
you are more certain your understanding is complete than I am of mine
being complete, which is a big warning-sign to anyone who wants to
take your blanket assertions as the end of the matter.
js> The interesting thing however is that the FSF
js> (before the GPLv3 exists) claimed that the CDDL is a bad
js> license _because_ of it's patent defense claims. Now the FSF
js> does the same as the CDDL ;-)
If we are debating the merits of the backing organizations rather than
the licenses themselves, then I think the more interesting thing is
that Sun enticed a bunch of developers to trust their stewardship of
the project by sassigning copyright to Sun, then got bought by Oracle
and became incapable of upholding their moral commitment and changed
the license to ``no source'', plucs ``no commercial use of binaries,
no publishing benchmarks,'' and a bunch of other completely crazy
unfree boilerplate software oppression. Your point, if it even
survives an unmudddled understanding of the true patent clauses,
vanishes next to that reversal.
but merits of backing organization is relevant for deciding about
assigning your copytright to another or about including/striking the
``or any later version'' GPL clause.
The interaction between licenses and patents can be discussed apart
from reputation, and probably should be otherwise I would say ``nobody
use CDDL because it is backed by Oracle,'' but I don't say that.
js> You are obviously wrong here: The GPLv3 is definitevely
js> incompatible with the GPLv2 and most software does _not_
js> include the "or any later clause" by intention.
And you are writing in bad faith, uninformed, and in sentences that
aren't internally consistent: GPLv2 with the clause is compatible with
GPLv3 by upgrade, so it's not ``definitively'' incompatible. The
official FSF-published version of GPLv2 does include the clause, so it
would be ``by design'' compatible even if almost everyone struck the
clause as you wrongly claim. And while it's overwhelmingly important
that Linux kernel does strike the clause, still it is flatly untrue
that ``most'' software does not include the clause: I gave examples
that do include the clause (gcc and gnu libc and grub and all other
FSF projects) while you have no examples at all, but there is no need
to debate that since anyone can STFW instead of relying on a
consistently unreliable party such as yourself.
js> OK, you just verified that you are just a troll. We need to
js> stop the discussion here.
Did you miss the part where I said SFLC (authors of GPLv3) and Sun
both advise that projects obtain copyright assignment from all
developers? that this is normal, and probably a good idea? If so,
you probably also missed the examples of good and bad consequences of
assignment in the past? and the middle-ground offered by the ``or any
later version'' clause?
I am not really trolling so much as checking whether you are actually
reading what I write, or are you an overt partisan wanting a platform
with no concern for actual discussion.
also you can stop discussing whenever YOU want to, but it's totally
without the bounds of etiquette to command others to stop discussing.
istr similar rudeness from you in the past which is part of why I'm
not particularly polite to you either, but this is the basic ground
rule I follow: it's about content, not your feelings.
js> the only way to combine Apache-2.0 code with GPL code still is
js> to declare the resultant work a "collective work". So there is
js> no difference from combining CDDL code with GPL code.
I have some trouble parsing this, although it doesn't sound completely
implausible. It does sound like legal advice from a non-lawyer,
though.
my reference for Apacle-2.0<->GPLv3 compatibility and CDDL<->GPLvXXX
incompatibility is the FSF's statements about their license's
compatibility with various others, which are based on the advice of
the SFLC lawyers that wrote the GNU licenses. If you've got something
similarly credible to back your views, like maybe a claim by lawyers
who wrote the CDDL that ``our license is compatble with GPLv<XXX>'',
please do speak up about that. ow, stfw. :(
js> Given the fact that the FSF is the biggest license/Copyright
js> violater on code taken from the cdrtools project, it should be
js> obvious that you cannot trust the FSF.
and yet, it is not obvious. It's obvious that you do not trust them
and obvious that many others do trust them, so I have to ask why you
say ``it should be obvious''? If I shared your delusions but retained
my rationality, I woudl write, ``I do not understand why after so much
experience it's still not obvious to everyone that you cannot
[u.s.w.]''. My hypothetical statement would contain more information
because I represent reality and then argue toward my view based on it,
so while it does include part of my undeluded opponent's argument
which might benefit him, that's okay because it's more grounded and
thus stronger with anyone who has the vaguest clue what's going on
around him. Yours has the advantage it may be more persuasive to
someone utterly uninformed of reality. to each his own strategy, I
guess. LMK how that works out for you.
pgp205z0MdCZB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
