• ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    But we have OpenZFS, which is under CDDL (=LGPL). So it’s fine.

    Edit: I was wrong, see comment below.

          • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Oh dear, I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info. I genuinely wish that people would stop using these pushover licenses. I thought it was like the LGPL, but sadly it isn’t. At least the base remains free though.

            • Natanael@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              21 hours ago

              It’s kinda comparable in terms, but because both licenses have comparable copyleft “no rights may be removed and no terms added” restrictions they conflict and can’t be merged.

              CDDL came after GPL, and I’m not convinced by the arguments for why it was used (to make some kind of development with commercial modules easier, but this could’ve been done with GPL + exceptions)

              That license plus patents (which only are freely licensed to the CDDL implementation specifically) means you can’t just rewrite it for Linux either. You’d have to wait for the patents to expire and then do clean room reverse engineering.