All software primarily used on Linux systems. You'll never ever see systemd outside Linux. Ever. BTW good luck with that mess too. Same with yast. You'll never see that outside Linux. Ever. You're creating quite the ecosystem of NIH and Linux only software. Btrfs, systemtap, etc. So "successful" is a seriously objective word as you use it. But good luck, you're going to need it methinks.
It's not the Linux community's fault that Sun wanted to create a license that would make it GPL incompatible. If it were compatible, it probably would've been merged years ago. And CDDL is still copyleft, but it retains all of the restrictions with none of the benefits for users. So it's really the "worst" of both worlds. But you can put that in your pipe and smoke it if you like.
> So "successful" is a seriously objective word as you use it.
Did you mean "subjective"? Because I agree that those projects are objectively successful.
It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license. Perhaps the issue isn't Sun or the CDDL but rather Linux and the GPL. Perhaps it's the GPL that isn't compatible with others. But that is the entire point of the viral nature of GPL. "You don't have to use our code." Your right and people are beginning not to. I mean seriously if you are so full of zeal you can't see Linux starting to circle the drain because of NIH, refusing to look outside their little tunnel vision world, while they reimplement things others are already solving, and reimplementing them badly, well then enjoy the ride. No one will obviously get you to see reason. But again enjoy your systemd and btrfs and systemtap and poorly implemented Linux only software.
Also I don't smoke, so no pipe was involved in these posts.
It's funny how other open source projects had no problem adopting ZFS or it's license.
Not true; here's OpenBSD/OpenSSH developer Damien Miller on the CDDL:
The CDDL is even more restrictive than the GPL and is
far more legally pernicious. In particular:
Clause 3.5 is a GPL-like "must distribute source" requirement.
Worse, clauses 3.3 and 9 have no place in a free software license.
I don't understand how anyone who has read the license could say that it
is even remotely "compliant with the BSD philosophy". The GPL is far
more acceptable than the CDDL.
> Is there a chance to have star integrated into OpenBSD?
Not with this license. If you want the BSDs to use star, then maybe you
should license it with a BSD license.
And now, because of "ZFS and dtrace", we should throw that entire
Bostic-started effort out the window. Screw freedom, I need ZFS and
dtrace. (...)
Don't be fooled. In fact, I urge our users to investigate every
person who has mentioned "ZFS and dtrace" together in the past. Their
agenda is not the one that you or I believe in. Their agenda is
division.
Yeah so I'm not sure first of all quoting theo or openbsd folks is adding value to your argument. They are known to be quite, how should I say this, on the extreme side of things.
And just because obsd holds this view that doesn't refute my statement. Illumos and FreeBSD are both OS and both are using it. So it is what it is.
Illumos didn't exactly "adopt" ZFS; it's a clone of Solaris created by core Solaris engineers, which just happened to live on beyond its original project. So essentially there's one project. Meanwhile, the GPL is used in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, MacOSX, Windows - and even SmartOS, an Illumos distribution.
I'm not really sure how you can say that but again enjoy your zeal induced tunnel view. You can't get any more free than the BSDL short of public ___domain. And neither OS has any binary only parts or parts only available if you pay for them that I am aware of. So again i don't know how you view them as not having strong convictions about free software.
They have no issue with their work being used for proprietary software. That's the opposite of having strong convictions about free software. Sure, they provide a mostly free operating system but they allow other people to take that code and enslave users. And I say that knowing that Linus doesn't care about software freedom either, it's just a development model to him. But at least it uses the GPL, so any code I contribute will never be used to enslave users.
"More free" is not the point. It's caring about users enough to not allow someone to take advantage of them by taking your work and giving them a proprietary version. That's what the GPL provides which the BSD doesn't.
