Their stock is 50% higher than it was a year ago.
Not quite sure this is doing them damage.
And anyone who is sympathetic to the request, knows that campaigning for the protocol break would require disrupting two or three levels of management above them, forcing powerful people to deal with something they don't care about. And that would be interpreted as wasting important people's time.
So the organization, as a decision making entity, is incapable of recognizing, much less considering, requests for an exception to default behavior.
I worked with a business that operated this way for many years. Even when there were overwhelming reasons to break process, the spark and tinder never got anywhere near each other.
Everyone between the spark and tinder empathized, talked to "somebody" to demonstrate they "tried", and to create an alibi for the inevitable "no" response that came next, while quietly doing everything they could to smother that spark, before it burned them.
They successfully weaponized open source by giving something for free and clawing back step by step (i.e. closing open source VSCode plugins), and leaving parts which does drowns competitors most effectively open.
Also they act like their open source code is “Free”. They firmly control it, yet act like they don’t.
Microsoft’s image didn’t improve a bit in my eyes.
They are responsive to the community and merge community PRs. That's already more "open" than, say, SQLite.
Sure, they don't give away merge rights and keep exclusive control over the upstream copy. But how many "open" projects have a second maintainer at all? I mean, more than one person (the original author) with merge access.
The code is free. You can always fork it and use it however you like. That's always been the deal you get with open source.
Sure, it's nice when the upstream maintainers always do only the things you like, and you never need to fork. But that's a separate quality, unrelated to the code itself being "free" or "open".
And that's why people should be pushing for Free Software, rather than Open Source.
20 years in the game, and I ended up agreeing with steve ballmer: open source is cancer.
Look at how bad it went for ElasticSearch and Redis, and then look how well it's going for Grafana (whose software is Free Software - besides being just great).
This is so true that Redis did not go back to being "open source", it became Free Software (AGPL).
Then, they closed the .NET ecosystem [1]. This is a bit more complex and convoluted. Closed source debuggers, changing plug-in licenses, removing nice features from open source .NET runtime, etc.
So, classic Microsoft.
Tesla stock is 63% higher than it was a year ago, does this prove that each and every decision their leadership made was helpful to the bottom line?
I hope I'm wrong though.
They're better positioned now than they have been at any other point in the past 10-15 years.
Oracle is not an abusive relationship, it's just that you shouldn't be looking elsewhere, and infractions will be punished. They are very serious about audits.
So here is the shortcut to a HN thread about this, for people like me, who hadn't heard about the case (assuming that's the one you meant):
> simply updating CDDL to allow integrating ZFS with GPL
That can't be done at this point. Owing to a decision that arose right here from a discussion on HN, the ZFS maintainers adopted a policy in 2016 to opt out of the CDDL's built-in "any subsequent version" clause for new source files:
~/scratch/zfs$ grep --exclude-dir=.git -Ire "Common Development and Distribution License" -A 2 | grep -ie "\(Version 1\.0 only\|\<only\>.*\<version\>\)" | wc -l
821
How about a simpler solution, just relicense everything to BSD / MIT.
I think some projects have done that in the past, but probably none where a big company owns the copyright to most of the code.
ZFS can be run under Linux - combining the Linux kernel with ZFS is a collective work (collection) of two independent works.
(This doesn’t necessarily stop people, but it is read by Debian as “illegal enough” to warrant a splash screen on installing OpenZFS that you’re losing the right to redistribute.)
Let's say I built a magical compiler capable of compiling a Linux+ZFS kernel in miliseconds. I put it behind a web UI which accepts a Linux tarball and ZFS tarball and spits out the compiled kernel. Because of some mysterious bug I am still trying to solve, only specific Linux and ZFS tarballs work, so I put validation to hash the uploaded tarballs and only let through the ones that are known to work.
Let's peel back the curtain: there is no magical compiler and all this is doing is hashing the input kernel & ZFS source tarballs, using it as a lookup table in a cache of precompiled binaries, and spitting out the matching one, which is currently not allowed. But let's assume the compiler was real, in this case it should be fine, even though the functionality of the system is no different.
I would at least understand if one of the licenses explicitly restricted the right to distribute ready-to-use binaries as a way to carve themselves a moat so the authors are the only ones that would be able to do it (and thus charge for it). But that's not the case here, nobody is better (or worse) off whether I waste time building it manually vs reuse someone else's earlier effort of building it.
WOULD they? It depends on how important it is to have a credible threat of enforcement for GPL violations. But it’s not zero, and it’s a pretty clear violation. Which is enough to scare off most major distros - if they receive a C&D, that’d be a breaking change they’d have to push retroactively. Not worth the risk.
It seems like all this would achieve is make Linux + ZFS more annoying to use and overall everyone loses.
The licenses are incompatible on a technicality, but it doesn't mean there is anything for either side to be gained by suing?
I don't associate Oracle and good will, and I don't think they care.