Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Oct 2016 19:05 UTC
FreeBSD

The FreeBSD Release Engineering Team is pleased to announce the availability of FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE. This is the first release of the stable/11 branch.

Some of the highlights:

  • OpenSSH DSA key generation has been disabled by default. It is important to update OpenSSH keys prior to upgrading. Additionally, Protocol 1 support has been removed.
  • OpenSSH has been updated to 7.2p2.
  • Wireless support for 802.11n has been added.
  • By default, the ifconfig(8) utility will set the default regulatory domain to FCC on wireless interfaces. As a result, newly created wireless interfaces with default settings will have less chance to violate country-specific regulations.
  • The svnlite(1) utility has been updated to version 1.9.4.
  • The libblacklist(3) library and applications have been ported from the NetBSD Project.
  • Support for the AArch64 (arm64) architecture has been added.
  • Native graphics support has been added to the bhyve(8) hypervisor.
  • Broader wireless network driver support has been added.

The release notes provide the in-depth look at the new release, and you can get it from the download page.

Thread beginning with comment 635447
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: But why would you use it?
by cade on Thu 13th Oct 2016 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But why would you use it? "
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

There's nothing stopping people from incorporating ZFS or dtrace into their own systems either. There may be issues with shipping it WITH a release of the Linux kernel, but the noise is coming from only a small corner of the GPL world.


Being a software developer myself, my stance is that source code licensing (and copyright) should be taken seriously and so the full legal effect of GPL-like licences, as with other licenses, should be operative.

In a closed environment you can do anything.
It is the other scenario, i.e. distributing the software outside a closed environment, which is the operative issue.

Due to philosophical reasons I do not prefer GPL-like source code licenses but that does not mean I will trash that licence; i.e. use GPL code as if it were BSD code in a BSD-licensed project. Instead, I would just avoid that GPL project and search for suitably licenced libraries to solve a software-coding related problem or ultimately implement my own specific libraries if the final analysis deems that more practical. I respect that GPL supporters (e.g. Stallman) have a strong/vigilant opinion on their preferred license (i.e. GPL) but I do not share that opinion; i.e. we agree to disagree and still be friendly about this disagreement.

The "noise" you mention concerns the legality in mixing non-GPL code (in this case CDDL-licensed code) with GPL code. Many entities, e.g. "software freedom conservancy" group, have indicated that it is a GPL violation to combine ZFS and Linux kernel. This is obvious since Sun Microsystems desired anti-GPL licensing of source codes for their ZFS/DTrace/other technologies and so they chose the CDDL to accomplish this. Sun developed these technologies and they are well within their right to license them with whatever license they desire. Who am I, or anybody else, to criticise an inventor of a useful technology. If the licensing or any other issue prevents you from using the respective technology then move on and find another solution.
As simple as that.

However, for some it is not that simple.
For example ...

The software freedom conservancy group

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

would, presumably, realise that ZFS is a very useful piece of technology at least as evidenced by Canonical's illegal bundling of ZFS withing their Ubuntu Linux-based distribution (a "big" company breaking the law concerning the ZFS/CDDL licence incompatibility).

In this scenario one solution from the group is ...
"As such, we again ask Oracle to respect community norms against license proliferation and simply relicense its copyrights in ZFS under a GPLv2-compatible license." .


Who does this group, and others behaving this way, think they are ? They have hope in "intellectually forcing" an action upon an inventor of a piece of technology.

What's this collectivist/communistic
"respect community norms"
notion ?

ZFS/DTrace/etc. were not developed under the conditions/motivation/etc. of "community norms".

Instead of the lawyers/etc. plainly saying words to the effect ...

"Hey Linux distros, do not touch ZFS technology because it is illegal due to conditions of Linux's GPL licencing."

they accept that Linux distro's like Ubuntu have done WRONG and then desire to change the stance of the inventor of the ZFS technology in an attempt to legalise this WRONG.

I call this hypocrisy.

If this group/others want the ZFS-effect then they should get together and invent their own copyrightable GPL-versioned-ZFS-lookalike and then happily use it in their own Linux distros. Obviously this is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, due to the highly specialised domain-specific knowledge required to implement technologies like ZFS.

One way Debian got around the GPL/CDDL licence issue
was to suggest the user of the distribution to build the ZFS support using code from "contrib", etc.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/zfs_comes_to_debian_thanks_...

Their stance is that

"If you choose to compile ZFS and run it, that's your problem."

My opinion is that Debian/others behaving this way are hypocrites and are a detriment to the stance implied by the GPL; eventhough I do not favour the GPL, it exists through it's ideological supporters. I accept the existence of the GPL, in addition to accepting other software licences, because the respective source code authors deem these licenses useful.

I remember years ago when a lawyer associated with the European Parliament was advising software developers to ditch BSD-like licenses and use GPL licensing so that entities like Microsoft could not financially benefit from closed/proprietary software development that involved code from these software developers.
Again, it's up to the software author not lawyer to decide on appropriate licensing. The software author has the freedom to apply whatever license they see fit for the respective software codes.

Microsoft got "big" because of the widespread "sheeple" attitude that embraced and got hooked on Microsoft products. Microsoft/OSX has it's uses. Open sourced OS, as a full-time OS, is not for everybody.
The proprietary OSes are useful for final porting/testing of software {developed, mostly debugged} initially using open-source OS; e.g. FreeBSD/OpenIndiana/Linux.

It's sad that Linux did not conquer the desktop, as was hoped years ago, since it would have allowed hardware to be more open source friendly and so help other open source (hobbyist, non-hobbyist) operating systems.

I am fine to accept the conditions implied by the various licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X11, zlib, BOOST, etc.) and when any of these conditions do not suite my ideological/philosophical stances then I move on and seek code that satisfies my stances or implement my own code. I have no problems stating my opposition to a specific licence but have no interest in attempting to convert someone's ideology because they support a license I do not prefer. Let's agree to disagree and leave it to that.

Better to redirect time spent on license wars towards
pressuring hardware manufacturers to release more technical info on their hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You don't seem to understand how law works in Common Law countries - most countries that are/were part of the British Empire that still retain the legal system from those times. .

Nothing is illegal unless tested in court. It is the opinion of some that distributing ZFS in Ubuntu's manner is against the licence terms, but in the opinion of others (Ubuntu's own lawyers, for one), it is completely within the licence terms.

Until the case actually goes the court and gets a ruling that it is actually illegal, potentially through appeals, it is not illegal.

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/linux-kernel-cddl.htm...

There are also, however, good reasons for a community of GPLv2 licensors so situated not to object:

All users of the binary (which is the form in which the overwhelming preponderance of users interact with the work) have their rights fully protected by GPLv2, which is the only license covering the binary;
There is no proprietary enhancement to the program, or any other frustration of the purpose of copyleft, because all the source code is freely available under license terms that guarantee all future versions will also be free software;
There are also, therefore, no "closed source" issues of maintainability or reliance in unmodifiable code on modifiable interfaces that future kernel development might change;
These files can be kept within the kernel source tree in a GPL'd whole, while managed with their CDDL licensing material intact, as is done with other non-GPL'd free software source files in other GPL-licensed projects following current best practices;
In sum, therefore, no developer and no user is deprived of any rights that either copyleft license, GPLv2 or CDDL, is designed to ensure and protect.

In this specific sense, then, the conduct which falls outside the words of GPLv2 falls within the "equity of the license," or its "spirit." As all Western legal systems have known since Aristotle, literal interpretation of any legal material will sometimes produce unintended unjust results, which can and should be corrected by the invocation of "equity." This present issue is evidently an example in which the tension between literal and equitable interpretation is raised, and it is the consensus of the kernel copyright holders' intention which determines which mode of interpretation is to be employed.


But the interpretation of GPLv2 with respect to Dtrace would be irrelevant if the copyright holder of Dtrace, Oracle, gave permission for Dtrace to be integrated with the kernel on GPL-compatible terms. This, by its own actions, it has done. As part of its Oracle Unbreakable Linux product, and the services it provides to Oracle customers, Oracle has itself made and distributed the combination of the Linux kernel and Dtrace. Those kernels were distributed to its customers under the terms of GPLv2, and Oracle is therefore estopped to deny others the permission to do what it has done. Oracle being the only copyright holder in Dtrace, it has the power to give permission for the combination to be made under terms compatible with GPLv2, and in the context in which it has acted it has, by its acting, done so. No question arises whether the kernel licensors have permitted, would permit, or should permit this combination: the required permission has already come, by way of estoppel, from the other side.


This, coupled with Linus' own aversion for GPL enforcement through lawyers, would likely make ZFS and DTrace distribution quite okay. And Linus, being pragmatic, would probably agree with Eben Moglen's view that the receiver's rights under GPL and CDDL are completely protected in practice.

Edited 2016-10-13 06:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2