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

[Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>]

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.
> 
>> 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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Wol