ZFS-Man

[runcute]

cool



[stefanlasiewski]

This video is linked from FreeBSD.org. Is there supposed to be sound to go along with this video which might explain some of the topics? Otherwise it's a very slow and looong way to explain what ZFS is.

[nchristy08]

Why do this guys hate Linux? i don't get it...

[behohippy]

I don't think it's Linux specifically, it's the GPL license. If you're doing work within the BSD community (this video is about FreeBSD and ZFS) you stick to the BSD license.

[nchristy08]

I haven't read the BSD License, yet. But aren't the LGPL and BSD License almost the same?

[krokounleashed]

no. BSD License says "take our free, open code and do whatever you want with it"

GPL says almost the same, but you have to unveil the code.

[nchristy08]

I know what the GPL says, i was talking about the Lesser/Library GPL. I've read the BSD license in this 1 month interval.

Now i know why Microsoft loves you guys, you just give the code away.

[ikarydis]

Well, they tend to create a huge mess when they implement it on their bloatware, but yes they can simply take the code and adapt it as they see fit. All they need is to reference the original authors, they don't need to disclose the code like GPL.

[pcfxer]

The BSD license premise is that companies may take our code, learn about it and it's usefulness within their company and eventually report back and start working with the *bsd community to improve the *bsd projects.

Instead of alienating companies by FORCING them and litigating their behinds into court because they didn't follow the GPL to the dot, I think BSD license will do more for Open Source than GPL will.

But that's me, silly young and stupid me ;).

[ikarydis]

I certainly agree with you and I believe that BSD licensed components and libraries are the best tools a developer has to produce excellent code (without the strings attached when using GPL licensed libraries). I do believe however that giving out the code to Micro$oft or any other big player is plainly unfair. I think a middle ground between GPL and BSD would be ideal.

[pcfxer]

Absolutely! Now, "all" you have to do is word it with every semantic and implication and mind (lawyerism) such that a middle ground license could never be manipulated ;).

MGL = Middle Ground License :p,

[kashzone]

Totally agree! While both licences are supporting openness, both do it in different ways, I suppose. If you take a GPL app and modify it and redistribute it, you need to show the source code. If you take something BSD licenced, you can profit from it without revealing anything to anybody. The first takes things too far in one direction, and the second takes things too far in the other direction.

[LTS1287]

@ikarydis: Well....you could follow Mozilla's example and release the code under a "tri-license." I don't know much about it but I think it basically says: if you want to use our code for nonprofit purposes it must be licensed under the GPL. If you want to use our code in a proprietary context...lets talk royalties.

The GPL is too restrictive while the BSD license is just way too liberal. I heard of some free software developers getting sued for not following the GPL which is just plain dumb.

[drahcir2]

loved it

[interpolator]

ahahahhaha))

[ascheepe]

rofl :)

[quchifeng]

very cooooooooooooooooooooool!!!

[mrtoper]

great video

[J4nus01]

Instructive and funny !