Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
very Well expressed ... On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 07:48 -0500, Carson Chittom wrote: > Daniel Villarreal writes: > > > I have to reconsider if I will ever buy another set of [Theo's] software, or > > continue to use it. > > Quit whining. Seriously, you're making us Americans look bad. > > I like being an American, and specifically one from the southeast US. > There is exactly zero chance that I would ever move to Canada or Europe > (seriously, guys, that much snow is just *weird*). But I really don't > give a damn about Theo's opinion of Americans and our mindset. Theo and > I probably disagree on a lot of things. But who cares? We're not > friends. He, and all the rest of the developers @openbsd.org, produce > an OS that I, personally, find useful--more useful than any other OS > I've tried, in fact. As long as they keep doing that, I'll keep using > it. > > I mean, seriously, do you vet the the opinions of the farmer before you > buy produce?
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
Is it just me, or is there a certain irony between the statement: > And less chest thumping "we are the greatest rah rah rah" idjits would be good > too and this auto-sig: > Sent from my iPhone did anyone else here the *thump* *thump* *thump*? Or is that just a left-over ringing in my ears from having some Mac-rabid coworkers? Just Sayin'. :) Nick.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 27 August 2011 06:09, Rob Payne wrote: > Chris, feel free to get out of the US. We do not need any apologists > here. The free world would not be so without us. Discouraging expression of ideas that don't toe the Party line sounds rather like one of the USA's old enemies... One can certainly be genuinely patriotic whilst in stark disagreement with the status quo. John
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
SmartOS is IllumOS. The license mixing isn't a good thing. I'm just a regular user of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I receive no paycheck. I have little to no money. I am destitute. People have trouble adapting and accepting change when it isn't under stress. Others fear to go against what is accepted- i.e. the norm. Complacency is a crutch for others. What the foundations and organizations do is not always reflective of the individual members. Mr. de Raadt, you are right to state politics plays a big part; but, you are also wrong to think that all of us have a hand in that process- It is a committee and not a democracy. --- On Fri, 8/26/11, Theo de Raadt wrote: From: Theo de Raadt Subject: Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD? To: "Amit Kulkarni" Cc: "Nick Holland" , misc@openbsd.org Date: Friday, August 26, 2011, 2:57 AM > I don't think Free and Net learnt anything from the old Unix lawsuit, > the whole unpleasantness of it. Their group is largely American; and when not in location they are so in perspective. Why would they have learned anything? Shall I keep it short? They are simplistic retards, not because they choose to be, but because their paychecks tell them to be so. And I invite one of them on our mailing lists to stand up and call me on that.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
And less chest thumping "we are the greatest rah rah rah" idjits would be good too Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2011, at 6:54 PM, ropers wrote: > On 26 August 2011 22:09, Rob Payne wrote: >> Chris, feel free to get out of the US. We do not need any apologists >> here. > > Apologists, eh? > You keep using that word... ;-P > > That said, I completely agree. The last thing the US in its current > state needs is apologists.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 26 August 2011 22:09, Rob Payne wrote: > Chris, feel free to get out of the US. We do not need any apologists > here. Apologists, eh? You keep using that word... ;-P That said, I completely agree. The last thing the US in its current state needs is apologists.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
Chris, feel free to get out of the US. We do not need any apologists here. The free world would not be so without us. Theo can adopt any policy he wishes in his British Commonwealth. No one gives a rat's ass. If his product is useful, I'll buy it. OpenBSD continues in spite of Theo's 'leadership.' Rob Payne On 8/26/11 9:01 AM, Chris Bennett wrote: > I have to support Theo on this. I am also an American. > Have you noticed OpenBSD's policy on crypto work? > No Americans due to fucked up US laws, not even if they live outside of US. > > Have you noticed a while back that Theo was looking for Hackathon sites and > said no US sites? > > Have you noticed world wide rioting and overthrowning of evil governments? > Americans have become sheep, willing to put up with no jobs and no job making > policies. > > My family already has an apartment in Guatemala. > We are leaving as soon I recover from my shoulder surgery and my Dad gets his > pensioner visa. > > I do not care to be stripped searched by flying in the US. > We only travel by bus and train. > > Things are seriously screwed up here! > > Chris Bennett
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 8/26/2011 6:01 AM, Chris Bennett wrote: I have to support Theo on this. I am also an American. Have you noticed OpenBSD's policy on crypto work? No Americans due to fucked up US laws, not even if they live outside of US. Have you noticed a while back that Theo was looking for Hackathon sites and said no US sites? Have you noticed world wide rioting and overthrowning of evil governments? Americans have become sheep, willing to put up with no jobs and no job making policies. My family already has an apartment in Guatemala. We are leaving as soon I recover from my shoulder surgery and my Dad gets his pensioner visa. I do not care to be stripped searched by flying in the US. We only travel by bus and train. Things are seriously screwed up here! Chris Bennett As a former American, I completely agree. Fortunately my company paid for my relocation and were actually looking for someone to move overseas anyway. Worrying about actual bad guys wanting to kill me is better than the government trying to 'protect' me from the 'terists'. Although I still have to deal the US still thinking they are protecting me, when they are just making a bad political mess worse (the other side hates us because we side with the US and foreign powers). Now I just have to get my servers moved out of the US, anyone know of a good VPS host located outside of the US?
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
What you mean snow ? Europe is more than Sweden and Norway! On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Carson Chittom wrote: > Daniel Villarreal writes: > >> I have to reconsider if I will ever buy another set of [Theo's] software, or >> continue to use it. > > Quit whining. Seriously, you're making us Americans look bad. > > I like being an American, and specifically one from the southeast US. > There is exactly zero chance that I would ever move to Canada or Europe > (seriously, guys, that much snow is just *weird*). But I really don't > give a damn about Theo's opinion of Americans and our mindset. Theo and > I probably disagree on a lot of things. But who cares? We're not > friends. He, and all the rest of the developers @openbsd.org, produce > an OS that I, personally, find useful--more useful than any other OS > I've tried, in fact. As long as they keep doing that, I'll keep using > it. > > I mean, seriously, do you vet the the opinions of the farmer before you > buy produce?
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
I have to support Theo on this. I am also an American. Have you noticed OpenBSD's policy on crypto work? No Americans due to fucked up US laws, not even if they live outside of US. Have you noticed a while back that Theo was looking for Hackathon sites and said no US sites? Have you noticed world wide rioting and overthrowning of evil governments? Americans have become sheep, willing to put up with no jobs and no job making policies. My family already has an apartment in Guatemala. We are leaving as soon I recover from my shoulder surgery and my Dad gets his pensioner visa. I do not care to be stripped searched by flying in the US. We only travel by bus and train. Things are seriously screwed up here! Chris Bennett
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
Daniel Villarreal writes: > I have to reconsider if I will ever buy another set of [Theo's] software, or > continue to use it. Quit whining. Seriously, you're making us Americans look bad. I like being an American, and specifically one from the southeast US. There is exactly zero chance that I would ever move to Canada or Europe (seriously, guys, that much snow is just *weird*). But I really don't give a damn about Theo's opinion of Americans and our mindset. Theo and I probably disagree on a lot of things. But who cares? We're not friends. He, and all the rest of the developers @openbsd.org, produce an OS that I, personally, find useful--more useful than any other OS I've tried, in fact. As long as they keep doing that, I'll keep using it. I mean, seriously, do you vet the the opinions of the farmer before you buy produce?
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
Theo, I call you on it. I'm American. I have an American perspective. I basically earn minimum wage in Canada, but I take pride in my work because my Dad taught me to. Dad was in the USN. I am trying to teach my son what my Dad taught me. I have to reconsider if I will ever buy another set of your software, or continue to use it. Daniel in Ontario On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I don't think Free and Net learnt anything from the old Unix lawsuit, > > the whole unpleasantness of it. > > Their group is largely American; and when not in location they are so > in perspective. Why would they have learned anything? > > Shall I keep it short? They are simplistic retards, not because they > choose to be, but because their paychecks tell them to be so. > > And I invite one of them on our mailing lists to stand up and call me > on that.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
> I don't think Free and Net learnt anything from the old Unix lawsuit, > the whole unpleasantness of it. Their group is largely American; and when not in location they are so in perspective. Why would they have learned anything? Shall I keep it short? They are simplistic retards, not because they choose to be, but because their paychecks tell them to be so. And I invite one of them on our mailing lists to stand up and call me on that.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> yeah, you gotta wonder about that. >> No, really, you don't. >> Those that tell you it is about "Freedom" are mostly full of shit. >> It's about "it didn't cost me anything" to most of them. > > We've got an entire operating system which is completely free as a > base; besides that, a shrinking set of GPL2 components are used to > help us build. Maybe in the future that will change. A variety of > choices are slowly in play. > > And now, because of "ZFS and dtrace", we should throw that entire > Bostic-started effort out the window. Screw freedom, I need ZFS and > dtrace. > > Don't be fooled. This request does not come from people who love ZFS > or dtrace. It comes from people who apparently love btoh ZFS _and_ > dtrace (otherwise, once in a while we'd get a mail from someone who > only mentions ZFS, right?). Because, as you all know, everyone needs > both "ZFS and dtrace", or they are doomed and it is a certainly that > Satan and Bill will consume their souls for eternity. Yes, I need > dtrace. Today tomorrow and forever, or I will go to hell. dtrace or > death. > > Yes, some of you will think I am silly, but if you do, please go check > some mail archives and you will see that apparently most ZFS people > don't care about ZFS, unless they post to *BSD mailing lists, and then > suddenly pushing dtrace becomes a real pressure point. > > I don't know where these people come from but they seem like agents of > Stallman or Company X or Company Y, at the very least some kind of > "divide and conquer" or "divide or conquer" effort is in play. Don't > even bother to respond to such people, unless your mail explains to > others what is going on. The real key phrase to watch for here is > that there are people who always mix "ZFS and dtrace" together. > Everytime they are mixed together, the person posting it is of the > type that has zero use for dtrace. They've been fooled by someone to > equate those two as "equal value". > > Who are these "ZFS and dtrace" people? Are they HFT programmers? I > really don't know. Do they help the project? I can assure you that > they do not. > > I bet they couldn't use dtrace to their advantage of their life > depended on it. > > Yet "ZFS and dtrace" so often mentioned together... > > Don't be fooled. In fact, I urge our users to investigate every > person who has mentioned "ZFS and dtrace" together in the past. Their > agenda is not the one that you or I believe in. Their agenda is > division. > > DTrace is really really really cool but it is totally inadvisable to integrate because of future problems. I don't think Free and Net learnt anything from the old Unix lawsuit, the whole unpleasantness of it.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Steve Shockley wrote: > On 8/23/2011 11:17 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> >> Who are these "ZFS and dtrace" people? Are they HFT programmers? B I >> really don't know. B Do they help the project? B I can assure you that >> they do not. > > Perhaps they want to use dtrace to find out where their ZFS data went... Heh. Nice one :-) Anyway maybe I used really bad wording. With ZFS and Dtrace I meant only that that there were couple of threads in misc@ when people asked for support of it and because of that "new approach" of Joyent to GPL/CDDL it seems possible in theory (not that we want it or need it). Regarding filesystems I like Hammer FS more ;-) . My post was meant completely licenses related. Because I just don't think that it's possible to mix CDDL with GPL in that way or even BSD with CDDL (thx to some patent related parts of that license. There's couple of projects which started from OpenSolaris code, but all of them are under CDDL which was created by Sun and Oracle get all of it. Maybe if some of those projects will be enough popular (more then Oracle stuff) then Oracle will step in with suits. At least CDDL sounds like good weapon for that for me.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 8/23/2011 11:17 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Who are these "ZFS and dtrace" people? Are they HFT programmers? I really don't know. Do they help the project? I can assure you that they do not. Perhaps they want to use dtrace to find out where their ZFS data went...
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
> yeah, you gotta wonder about that. > No, really, you don't. > Those that tell you it is about "Freedom" are mostly full of shit. > It's about "it didn't cost me anything" to most of them. We've got an entire operating system which is completely free as a base; besides that, a shrinking set of GPL2 components are used to help us build. Maybe in the future that will change. A variety of choices are slowly in play. And now, because of "ZFS and dtrace", we should throw that entire Bostic-started effort out the window. Screw freedom, I need ZFS and dtrace. Don't be fooled. This request does not come from people who love ZFS or dtrace. It comes from people who apparently love btoh ZFS _and_ dtrace (otherwise, once in a while we'd get a mail from someone who only mentions ZFS, right?). Because, as you all know, everyone needs both "ZFS and dtrace", or they are doomed and it is a certainly that Satan and Bill will consume their souls for eternity. Yes, I need dtrace. Today tomorrow and forever, or I will go to hell. dtrace or death. Yes, some of you will think I am silly, but if you do, please go check some mail archives and you will see that apparently most ZFS people don't care about ZFS, unless they post to *BSD mailing lists, and then suddenly pushing dtrace becomes a real pressure point. I don't know where these people come from but they seem like agents of Stallman or Company X or Company Y, at the very least some kind of "divide and conquer" or "divide or conquer" effort is in play. Don't even bother to respond to such people, unless your mail explains to others what is going on. The real key phrase to watch for here is that there are people who always mix "ZFS and dtrace" together. Everytime they are mixed together, the person posting it is of the type that has zero use for dtrace. They've been fooled by someone to equate those two as "equal value". Who are these "ZFS and dtrace" people? Are they HFT programmers? I really don't know. Do they help the project? I can assure you that they do not. I bet they couldn't use dtrace to their advantage of their life depended on it. Yet "ZFS and dtrace" so often mentioned together... Don't be fooled. In fact, I urge our users to investigate every person who has mentioned "ZFS and dtrace" together in the past. Their agenda is not the one that you or I believe in. Their agenda is division.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 08/23/11 12:17, Tomas Bodzar wrote: ... > OpenBSD is really clear about its policy, but do you think that it's > really possible to port stuff this way and made it available as > module without need for change of license or worrying about shark > suits? "porting" stuff isn't the issue, usually. OpenBSD doesn't avoid importing new GPL, CDDL, etc. code because the code can't be imported into the OpenBSD project by the terms of the proposed code, OpenBSD avoids importing other licenses because it limits the utility of OpenBSD, and the ability to be used for any purpose the user desires. Could OpenBSD "import" ZFS in one of many ways? Sure. Could you use it in all the ways you could use OpenBSD now? No. YOU, the user, are the one who has to worry about the sharks. It's about YOU, not the code. > Thx > > PS: No flame at all. I just think that this situation can be > interesting regarding future because of mixing licenses in some of > systems which are not so strict about license policy yeah, you gotta wonder about that. No, really, you don't. Those that tell you it is about "Freedom" are mostly full of shit. It's about "it didn't cost me anything" to most of them. Watch a person's actions, not their words. They can chant all they want about "freedom", but when they willingly stick their hands in the cuffs because it's easier in the short term, their actions have spoken, it's about the effort, not the freedom. They can chant all they want about the "perfection" of their license, but when they freely contaminate it with other license with more restrictions, they have shown their real motivation. ZFS is cool, don't get me wrong. But...by making it such a core part of what makes FreeBSD special, FreeBSD is no longer BSD-free...it's CDDL or whatever the Oracle sharks (which make the Sun sharks look sane) want it to be-free. Maybe that's good enough for you, maybe it isn't. YOU have to pay the lawyers to figure it out, though, not FreeBSD. With something like ZFS, you have two choices: 1) keep it as a "side" project, like OpenBSD does with Chrome, Firefox, etc. You can build an OpenBSD-based product without any of those things..by not adding the packages. But for something like a file system...do you really want to bet your data on a file system treated like a bastard step-child, tested by only a few users, and not really core to the system? A file system isn't a browser. When your browser crashes, well, we are all used to that (says something right there, doesn't it?). You don't want your file system working that way, do you? 2) Embrace the product, use it everywhere, assume the user will base their solutions on it. In that case...the project is now effectively FreeCDDL and NetCDDL. That's fine if that's what they want (obviously, they do) and they go in eyes open (not so sure about that). Nick.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
martian67 [martia...@gmail.com] wrote: > > It is extremely clear, no non-ISC licensed/similarly licensed > software will be imported into base. Peroid. I don't know about that. Quite a bit of GPL software is now being incorporated into the base tree. In fact, Theo is almost finished importing GCC 4.6.1, directly into the kernel for faster compiles. Each stage of GCC becomes a short-lived kernel thread, it's quite an interesting model (Apparently avoiding context switches cuts compile time in less than half!) Miod made some progress on replacing our outdated libc with glibc. IIRC, the main desire there was to fix important POSIX compatibility issues, and to start replacing the outmoded "strlcat" concept with a secure version of strcat. Anyways, that's not all, Henning's project to replace PF with a port of iptables (to get their fast stateful filtering code) is almost finished! Here is perhaps the most interesting part. There was recent talk about replacing OpenSSH with a version of Tectia SSH (to satisfy OpenBSD enterprise users who are threatening to cut funding to the project if Active Directory support isn't finished.) But, I'm not sure if Tectia's evaluation-only, binary version is going to be accepted into the tree without some kind of source code audit. Theo has been talking to Tatu Ylonen about getting a copy of the source code (unfortunately under NDA) so that an OpenBSD code audit could be performed. Conveniently, we only need to run Tectia SSH under Linux emulation -- binary builds will be handled by Tectia and posted to their web site. (As an aside, the kernel implementation of GCC 4.6.1 will be faster after this, it won't be busy building OpenSSH anymore.) -- the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On 8/23/2011 10:17 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote: Hi all, as some of you maybe know there's new player on OS market called http://smartos.org . What's starting to be interesting is their "port" of KVM to Solaris code base which is used as a kernel module. Bryan Cantrill didn't talk much about licenses in his paper http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/71/2011-forum-porting-to-smartos.pdf No matter how much interesting it sounds, the question on licensing was addressed vaguely (if at all) during the talk. In a private chat later, Bryan mentioned there's no violation at all, but here you can find a little more discussion https://lwn.net/Articles/455008/ In NetBSD is eg. dtrace/zfs made as module. The question now is if those ports are CDDL, GPL or BSD licensed. Probably there was not similar case at court yet. As I know CDDL parts are (for example as modules) in FreeBSD and NetBSD and there were couple of threads on misc@ about porting zfs/dtrace to OpenBSD as well. OpenBSD is really clear about its policy, but do you think that it's really possible to port stuff this way and made it available as module without need for change of license or worrying about shark suits? Thx PS: No flame at all. I just think that this situation can be interesting regarding future because of mixing licenses in some of systems which are not so strict about license policy It is extremely clear, no non-ISC licensed/similarly licensed software will be imported into base. Peroid.
Re: CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:17:53PM +0200, Tomas Bodzar wrote: > Hi all, > > as some of you maybe know there's new player on OS market called > http://smartos.org . What's starting to be interesting is their "port" > of KVM to Solaris code base which is used as a kernel module. > > Bryan Cantrill didn't talk much about licenses in his paper > http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/71/2011-forum-porting-to-smartos.pdf > No matter how much interesting it sounds, the question on licensing > was addressed vaguely (if at all) during the talk. In a private chat > later, Bryan mentioned there's no violation at all, but here you can > find a little more discussion https://lwn.net/Articles/455008/ > > In NetBSD is eg. dtrace/zfs made as module. The question now is if > those ports are CDDL, GPL or BSD licensed. Probably there was not > similar case at court yet. > > As I know CDDL parts are (for example as modules) in FreeBSD and > NetBSD and there were couple of threads on misc@ about porting > zfs/dtrace to OpenBSD as well. > > OpenBSD is really clear about its policy, but do you think that it's > really possible to port stuff this way and made it available as > module without need for change of license or worrying about shark > suits? Sure you can make a port. You can have all kinds of unfree things in packages. So go for it. > > Thx > > PS: No flame at all. I just think that this situation can be > interesting regarding future because of mixing licenses in some of > systems which are not so strict about license policy Only for the base OS. Packages can have all kinds of crazy licenses.
CDDL vs GPL and maybe some implications for BSD?
Hi all, as some of you maybe know there's new player on OS market called http://smartos.org . What's starting to be interesting is their "port" of KVM to Solaris code base which is used as a kernel module. Bryan Cantrill didn't talk much about licenses in his paper http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/71/2011-forum-porting-to-smartos.pdf No matter how much interesting it sounds, the question on licensing was addressed vaguely (if at all) during the talk. In a private chat later, Bryan mentioned there's no violation at all, but here you can find a little more discussion https://lwn.net/Articles/455008/ In NetBSD is eg. dtrace/zfs made as module. The question now is if those ports are CDDL, GPL or BSD licensed. Probably there was not similar case at court yet. As I know CDDL parts are (for example as modules) in FreeBSD and NetBSD and there were couple of threads on misc@ about porting zfs/dtrace to OpenBSD as well. OpenBSD is really clear about its policy, but do you think that it's really possible to port stuff this way and made it available as module without need for change of license or worrying about shark suits? Thx PS: No flame at all. I just think that this situation can be interesting regarding future because of mixing licenses in some of systems which are not so strict about license policy
