Leaping the chasm from proprietary to open: A survivor's guide

There's a very interesting talk on the matter by Bryan Cantrill where he explained that the gpl was unsuitable for their scope for a number of valid reasons, including the fact that the gpl vitality would have affected indipendent hardware vendors too, iirc. And some more cases. I hope I didn't write bs, however here is the talk of you want to know more and with more details: link to this video (leaping the chasm from proprietary to open: a survivor's guide) As usual Bryan Cantrill is just brilliant at explaining stuff. Edit: just to be explicit: it was NOT about keeping stuff out of Linux.

…oftware development. (Cloud computing too, certainly -- but I don't think that cloud computing is economically viable without open source.) So software development from the 1990s is unrecognizable in large part because it is just so damned proprietary -- which, as it turns out, was in fact a relatively short blip in the fullness of history.0 0 link to this video , in which I expand a bit on the history of open source, among other things…

So, that rant actually predates Oracle v. Google. (For a bit of a history of my LISA talk that you quoted, and then my added color on Oracle v. Google see 0.) Oracle has shown everyone over and over again who they are; it shows how deep the mistrust in Red Hat has become that Oracle seems benign by comparison. 0 link to this video

They definitely changed one of the licenses, and in fact in the most brazen way possible -- they relicensed OpenSolaris to proprietary!01 Your point stands, though: illumos very much outpaced and outlived it.2 0 link 1 link to this video 2 link

…acle is soulless, which may or may not be worse than other companies, but it is decidedly different: however deluded they might be, Meta thinks that they are making the world a better place; Oracle not only doesn't harbor any such delusions, they are further genuinely confused why anyone would care about a higher purpose or calling. 0 link 1 link to this video…

…ense agreement (we’re not so into CLAs); and (best of all, in my opinion), it has been explicitly designed to co-exist with other open source licenses in larger derived works. Mozilla did terrific work on MPL 2.0, and we hope to see it adopted by other companies that share our thinking around open source!” link Also discussed around 38 minute of link to this video Although not explicitly stated there are like deeper roots here “The one important exception to these generalizations is Sun Microsystems' CDDL, which was a true improvement on MPL 1.1, and which continues to cover a substantial amount of important open source software. … I encourage Oracle, the current CDDL steward, to consider relicensing…