Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Mar 2013 23:45 UTC
Linux "Today the ZFS on Linux project reached an important milestone with the official 0.6.1 release! Over two years of use by real users has convinced us ZoL is ready for wide scale deployment on everything from desktops to super computers."
Thread beginning with comment 557189
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I guess that would depend on who you speak to. Danese Cooper, who worked as an open source evangelist for Sun, has stated that many engineers did push for a GPL incompatible license.

Obviously there'd be other reasons behind such a decision (unlike you, I'm not claiming an either/or argument) and obviously those leading public talks would dismiss the whole "GPL incompatible" argument because it's simply bad PR. So you're clearly going to find plenty of sources that cite other reasons for how CDDL turned out the way it had. But those points aren't mutually exclusive from what I've been saying either; the idea of Sun's code being copied verbatim into Linux wasn't a favorable amongst Sun engineers. It really wasn't and thus many engineers did push for CDDL to be GPL incompatible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Ahh, that is a lot more nuances 'statement'. Now you are saying certain engineers pushed for GPL incompatible licensing.

I think that would be realistic and very probably correct.

And we'll never know how large a part of all engineers that was.

Edited 2013-03-31 00:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Ahh, that is a lot more nuances 'statement'. Now you are saying certain engineers pushed for GPL incompatible licensing.

That's exactly what I said right from the bloody start:
Though I guess this is the same grievances the engineers at Sun had and why they pushed for CDDL to be incompatible with GPL.
Ok, I'll concede that the statement does read a bit like I'm saying every engineer pushed for that. I could have been a little more clear on that. But I'd have thought the generalisation was implied.


And we'll never know how large that part was.

Oh totally. I was never trying to argue the reason for CDDLs licensing, just some of the feelings from some of the engineers. In actual fact, the end result of CDDL is irrelevant to the point I was making (though you could be forgiven for not realising that with the way how that statement was phrased).

Reply Parent Score: 2