>>>>> "js" == Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical
partisan hackery:
js> GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL
js> also.
I think this is wrong. The patent indemnification is totally
different: AIUI the CDDL makes the implicit patent license explicit
and that's it, but GPLv3 does that and goes further by driving in a
wedge against patent pacts, somehow.
GPLv3 might help with NetApp <-> Oracle pact while CDDL does not.
This is a big difference illustrated through a familiar and very
relevant example---not sure how to do better than that, Joerg!
js> The GPLv3 is intentionally incompatible with the GPLv2
This is definitely wrong, if you dig into the detail more. Most GPLv2
programs include a clause ``or any later version'', so adding one
GPLv3 file to them just makes the whole project GPLv3, and there's no
real problem.
Obviously this clause only makes sense if you trust the FSF, which I
do so I include it, but Linus apparently didn't trust them so he
struck the clause long ago.
so GPLv3 and Apache are compatible while GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not, that
is true and is designed. However GPLv2 was also designed to be
upgradeable, which was absolutely the FSF's intent, to achieve
compatibility, and they have done so with all their old projects like
gcc and gnu libc.
The usual way to accomplish license upgradeability is to delegate your
copyright to the organization you trust to know the difference between
``upgrade'' and ``screw you over.'' That's the method Sun forced upon
people who had to sign contributor agreements, and is also the method
SFLC advises most new free software projects to adopt: don't let
individual developers keep licenses, because they'll become obstinate
ossified illogical partisan farts like Joerg, or will not answer
email, so you can never ever change the license.
FSF gives you this extra ``or any later version'' option to use, which
is handy if you trust them to make your software more free in the
future yet also want to keep your copyright so YOU can make it less
free in the future, if you decide you want to. seems only fair to me,
so long as you really did write all of it.
GPLv3 is about as incompatible with GPLv2 as ``not giving any source
at all'' is incompatible with CDDL. ie, if you delegated your
copyright to Sun and contributed under CDDL, Sun has now ``upgraded''
your license to no-source-at-all, which is obviously CDDL-incompatible
and by-design.
The CDDL of course could never include an ``or any later version''
clause because it would be completely stupid: there's no reason to
trust Sun/Oracle. IMHO this is a huge advantage of GPL---it's very
easy to future-proof your work, provided you trust the FSF, which I'm
sure Joerg does not, but many people do which is lucky for us who do.
Joerg doesn't have anyone left to trust: if you donated your copyright
to Sun to try to future-proof it against unexpected needed license
changes, you're now screwed out of your original intent because
they've altered the terms of the deal you thought you were getting.
And if your clan of developers won't collectively trust anyone, you
also lose because if your understanding of patents evolves in the
future, your large old projects who refused-to-trust (like Linux!) are
stuck with patent robustness much worse than it needs to be.
pgpLNxOOb1hx9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
