Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme?

["J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org>]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 10:59:38 PM CET Wols Lists wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 11:11, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:27:35 PM CET Wols Lists wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2024 13:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>>> Clearly Oracle likes this state of affairs.  Either that, or they are
> >>>> encumbered in some way from just GPLing the ZFS code.  Since they on
> >>>> paper own the code for both projects it seems crazy to me that this
> >>>> situation persists.
> >>> 
> >>> GPL is not necessarily the best license for releasing code. I've got
> >>> some
> >>> private projects that I could publish. But before I do that, I'd have to
> >>> decide on a License. I would prefer something other than GPL.
> >> 
> >> Okay. What do you want to achieve. Let's just lump licences into two
> >> categories to start with and ask the question "Who do you want to free?"
> > 
> > I want my code to be usable by anyone, but don't want anyone to fork it
> > and
> > start making money off of it without giving me a fair share.
> 
> Okay, that instantly says you want a copyleft licence. So you're stuck
> with a GPL-style licence, and if they want to include it in a commercial
> closed source product, they need to come back to you and dual licence it.
> 
> Personally, I'd go the MPL2 route, but that's my choice. It might not
> suit you. But to achieve what you want, you need a copyleft, GPL-style
> licence.

I'll have a look at that one.

> >> If that sounds weird, it's because both Copyleft and Permissive claim to
> >> be free, but have completely different target audiences. Once you've
> >> answered that question, it'll make choosing a licence so much easier.
> >> 
> >> GPL gives freedom to the END USER. It's intended to protect the users of
> >> your program from being held to ransom.
> > 
> > That's not how the kernel devs handle the GPL. They use it to remove
> > choice
> > from the end user (me) to use what I want (ZFS).
> > And it's that which I don't like about the GPL.
> 
> No. That's Oracle's fault. The kernel devs can't include ZFS in linux,
> because Oracle (or rather Sun, at the time, I believe) deliberately
> *designed* the ZFS licence to be incompatible with the GPL.

Maybe not included fully into the kernel, but there is nothing preventing it 
to be packaged with a Linux distribution.
It's just the hostility from Linus Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman against ZFS 
causing the issues.

See the following post for a clear description (much better written than I 
can):
https://eerielinux.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/zfs-and-gpl-terror-how-much-freedom-is-there-in-linux/

Especially the lkml thread linked from there:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/

> After all, there's nothing stopping *you* from combining Linux and ZFS,
> it's just that somebody else can't do that for you, and then give you
> the resulting binary.

Linux (kernel) and ZFS can't be merged. Fine.
But, Linux (the OS, as in, kernel + userspace) and ZFS can be merged legally.

> At the end of the day, if someone wants to be an arsehole, there's not a
> lot you can do to stop them, and with ZFS that honour apparently goes to
> Sun.

See what I put above.

--
Joost