Miles Nordin <car...@ivy.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "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.
Both licenses do the same using different words. They both require contributors
to give a royalty-free patent usage permission for all patents owned or
controlled by the contributor in case they are used by the contributed code.
More is not possible. If you believe there is a noticable difference, please
explain.....
> 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!
GPLv3 does not help at all with NetApp as the CDDL already includes a patent
grant with the maximum possible coverage. The interesting thing however is that
the FSF (before the GPLv3 exists) claimed that the CDDL is a bad license
_because_ of it's patent defense claims. Now the FSF does the same as the
CDDL ;-)
> 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.
You are obviously wrong here: The GPLv3 is definitevely incompatible with the
GPLv2 and most software does _not_ include the "or any later clause" by
intention.
> 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.
Given the fact that the FSF is the biggest license/Copyright violater on code
taken from the cdrtools project, it should be obvious that you cannot trust
the FSF.
> 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 Apache-2.0 license grants sub-licensing, so it is one of the few licenses
where the end-user or redistributor may not always get all permissions from the
original author. If you however like to combine Apache-2.0 code with GPL code
and do this acording to the rules written in the GPL, this is still not
possible as the Apache-2.0 license does not give you the permission to change
the license for code from other contributors.
As a result, the only way to combine Apache-2.0 code with GPL code still is to
declare the resultant work a "collective work". So there is no difference from
combining CDDL code with GPL code.
> 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.
OK, you just verified that you are just a troll. We need to stop the discussion
here.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
