linux-kernel - Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:02:49 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
To:	Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczek@...y.mif.pg.gda.pl>
cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"David R. Litwin" <presently42@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> > That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
> > mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
> > to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
> 
> CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like "CDDL
> is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and only) CDDL ?

>From what I have read, CDDL is treading the veeeerrrrrry thin line between 
an actual Free license and an actual proprietary licence. Just look at the 
nonsense Mozilla Co. has gotten itself worked up about (and judging by how 
much Firefox/Iceweasel crashes on me, being like IE is quite appropriate 
in licencing too). And (if I have not been misinformed), CDDL is inspired 
by Mozilla's licence.

The FSF has something to say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
So yes, CDDL is, to me, "pseudo-"proprietary, and it would be very easy 
for them to slip up and whoops! Didn't we tell you? You can do everything 
but -that-. But of course it's still free...yeah...

> > I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
> > with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
> > moments, and made the right decision.
> 
> I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I see
> (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses which
> provides more oppened (and not closed) code.

The GPL is more about protection than openness. Someone can write code, 
throw it on the internet with no licence at all, and it's exactly as 
"open" as it is under the GPL. You can do anything you want with it in any 
way, just like under the GPL. What the GPL does is protect the code and 
its writer from being snapped up by somebody else, and in any way 
restricted: It makes sure the code STAYS open, and makes sure you are 
always free to do as you like with it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/