>This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others disagree. And even if it was verifiably true: What about Open Source values? Since when is the GPL the only acceptable Open Source license?
Lots of hand-waving and false equivalency here. We're not talking about "Open Source values", we're talking specifically about the Linux kernel. And the Linux kernel is GPLv2 licensed. The Software Freedom Conservancy analyzed the situation and determined that a GPL-licensed project cannot legally incorporate CDDL code into the binary.
FWIW, Ubuntu has done so anyway via a kernel module and yet has to be sued for it, but the Linux kernel project may still refrain from doing so out of an abundance of caution.
I believe someone else summed it up quite well when they said (paraphrasing), "Solaris intentionally made ZFS difficult to incorporate into Linux by the licensing, so the Linux developers are (understandably) tired of bending over backwards to try to accommodate ZFS."
They need to stop being so stubborn.
The article addresses this the wrong way:
>Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL!
Doesn't matter whether it's deliberate or not. And it's not merely one opinion, it's GNU, FSF, SFC, Debian, Fedora - quite a lot I'm not going to list them all, who do consider CDDL a free software license, but also consider it incompatible with GPL.
I have yet to read anything from Linux developers or users that they don't like ZFS, quite the contrary. And the solution is distros won't package pre-built binaries, you have to compile it yourself. And it's not that difficult.
The article seems to argue that some Linux people in power hate ZFS (no evidence) and use CDDL GPL incompatibility as an excuse to keep it away from Linux users (again no evidence).
All they have to do is allow the calls. (Its a silly restriction anyway).
Copyleft licenses ensure that the code itself remains open source. MIT-style licenses ensures that a developer can use the code without encumbrance. And there are already plenty of licenses out there that are incompatible with the GPL through other conflicting terms - non-commercial licenses come to mind.
What would be the goal of an anti-copyleft license other than to stick it to copyleft projects?
Maybe, but it's a dim way of looking at other people.
The irony being that formerly FOSS companies are turning to dual licensing, "open core", and similar non-free strategies because it turned out that Gates & Ballmer, y'know, like, actually had a point: you need income in order to keep your business running.
And, by the way, you're wrong anyway: GPLv1 came out in '89 and GPLv2 came out in '91. Microsoft was a relatively minor player at that time; its meteoric rise to dominance didn't begin until a few years later.
It’s clear the GPL hurts open source. It’s why I’ve never liked it.
And I think GPL actually embodies a really positive mindset. To release GPL code is to believe that there are others out there who will help you without intending to get advantage over you or shut you out.
It's dead. At best it might have a few useful ideas to put into our live filesystems.