[Annatar]

> The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.

Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D)

GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!)

http://www.blinkydog.com/wp-content/uploads/Dogs-Do-Not-Want...

GNU / GPL: DO NOT WANT!

> Your position is also wrong.

Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it.

And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free.

But not under the GPL license.

Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

[cyphar]

> > The CDDL has a provision that if any part is held unenforcible it will be modified to make it enforceable. As a matter of licensing, that's incredibly devious and bad. There's other super dodgy parts of the CDDL that make it a bad license purely from a license point of view, let alone from "freedoms given to users" perspective.

> Wait until you discover the BSD license, which lets you do whatever you want with the code... you might get a stroke (:-D)

Including someone taking my software, making it proprietary and mistreating users. I would prefer that less people use my code than someone doing that.

> GPL gave me no freedoms, it gave me the GNU userland tools and GNU/Linux (illumos / SmartOS and AT&T SVR4 tools are just fine, thank you, do not want GNU!)

Wow, so much vitriol for a license that actually created the world we live in today. I'm slightly impressed by how much you hate a license that gives users perpetual freedom. Also, why do you think that CDDL's weak copyleft is better than GPL? I understand, but don't agree with, people who hate copyleft altogether -- but you only hate the GPL.

> Luckily I don't have to license anything under the GPL, GPL cannot take that away from me as long as I don't link with the kernel code licensed under it, or derive code / work from it.

You can dual-license modifications to GPL code. I think doing that is dumb, but you can do it.

> And I'll be extra careful I don't ever land myself in a position where I would have to license something under the GPL. Any other FOSS license is better than the GPL, I have no problem with open sourcing, and cannot wait to clean up my code in order to set it free.

It's so sad that you don't ever want to make contributions to a large body of free software.

> Finally, CDDL is both FSF and OSI approved: the open source initiative looked over the CDDL license and deemed it to be in compliance with open source. I will take what is in my view their expert finding over your position, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

I know its a free software license. I'm just saying it's a bad free software license. The original BSD license was also a bad free software license (requiring you to add a line to all advertising about the source project).

[Annatar]

> Wow, so much vitriol for a license that actually created the world we live in today.

Yes, and since that world is the world of GNU/Linux, it sucks, because compared to illumos and SmartOS, GNU/Linux is a vastly inferior product in terms of capabilities, performance, end to end data integrity, post mortem analysis, as well as storage, day to day system administration, and development capabilities.

I don't want to live in a world with those kinds of "freedoms". I don't want to live in a world where people who do not have enough experience, or do not care break my applications because they constantly mess with the core OS functionality in a way which breaks or fundamentally changes things, arbitrarily, because they can't see past their lone desktop personal computers, but they think they can, and they think they know what needs to be done. I don't want to live in a world where the core OS functionality like startup and shutdown is still in violent flux, along with everything else. If it weren't for GNU, if it weren't for GPL, we would not have the world we have right now. The situation is bad, so very, very bad.

I want to live in a world where my data is safe, where my operating system provides a solid foundation of end to end data integrity and guarantees me backwards compatibility so I can build good, reliable software, and when that software needs troubleshooting, I have all the tools I need to perform effective telemetry analysis. That world is a world without GNU/Linux, a world where SmartOS is the substrate and illumos is the kernel, and where I, and not the FSF, hold (sometimes joint) copyright to the work I did.

If I had it my way, copyright law would be completely abolished, making all of this license nonsense completely pointless, and it would be survival of the best coder / company: if you are really so good, beat me at my own game, like it has always been on the cracking and the demo scenes.

> I'm slightly impressed by how much you hate a license that gives users perpetual freedom. Also, why do you think that CDDL's weak copyleft is better than GPL? I understand, but don't agree with, people who hate copyleft altogether -- but you only hate the GPL

GPL license attempts to dictate to me what and how I am to do with my own code I write ("you must license all derived work under the GPL").

I do not accept that, even if I firmly believe that open sourcing software is the right thing to do, and believe that open source, free software is the way to go.

[cyphar]

> > I'm slightly impressed by how much you hate a license that gives users perpetual freedom. Also, why do you think that CDDL's weak copyleft is better than GPL? I understand, but don't agree with, people who hate copyleft altogether -- but you only hate the GPL

> GPL license attempts to dictate to me what and how I am to do with my own code I write ("you must license all derived work under the GPL").

> I do not accept that, even if I firmly believe that open sourcing software is the right thing to do, and believe that open source, free software is the way to go.

The CDDL has the same requirement, except it's file-based. What are you even talking about FFS.