gillianseed

Me too, this was my favourite of the countless Gauntlet clones, given that it added some cool ideas: element magic which affected enemies differently, a sidekick you could conjure, and probably more cool things I can't recall at the moment.

I find your reasoning very strange, if anything, GPL ensures that the 'ideas' are instead made available for anyone to use, provided that they in turn do the same.

If anything would be a 'tumor' by your reasoning around ideas, it would be proprietary software, which is what GPL prevents.

>They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS.

No, it was adopted in order to have Windows compability, which you need given the Windows desktop monopoly and since Windows refuses to support any filesystem it won't get royalties on.

I've seen projects use LGPL with a added static linking exception (as in allowing it).

>Why do you suppose that is? It's infuriating to see someone else make a lot of money with something you developed for free?

The argument as I recall it from back then was that they did not want to hurt the arcade business, the manufacturers of arcade games would suffer if instead of purchasing their arcade machines, their potential customers would load up a PC with MAME and rig it to a coin-slot/cabinet.

Also the MAME (and MESS which is the same for computers and consoles/handheld) has a policy of not emulating arcades/etc until they are no longer supported/out of circulation.

True, an increase in optimizations will likely mean longer compile times, on the other hand, with better optimized code, the compiler itself (as it's written in Go) will also perform better, which may negate some of the increase in compile time.

Improved optimizations which will also be easier to implement, with the result being faster and also typically smaller code.

And then he went and released Java under the GPL.

I'm going to go with the actual author of the licence (Danese), and not just because she authored it but because the idea that Sun management, seeing themselves struggle against Linux, would allow Linux to use their prized ZFS and DTrace, and thus offer even less reason to choose Solaris over Linux is simply insane from any kind of business point.

And not even now do we have anyone arguing here that CDDL is not GPL-incompatible, people accept that and Linus refuses to merge any CDDL code in to mainline, what is being discussed here is if ZFS counts as a derivative (and thus has to be GPL compatible) when it runs as a kernel module in Linux kernel space.

>The other reply [1] nails the real point: No one at Oracle is complaining.

Canonical hasn't shipped their distro with the ZFS kernel module yet. My impression of Oracle is that they let their lawsuits do the talking.

>You also ignore the binary kernel object point: Nvidia's drivers are completely proprietary and closed source. How is that in any way less of a violation?

AFAIK NVidia's drivers are not a default part of any distribution (including Ubuntu from Canonical) and has to be enabled/installed explicitly by the end user, meanwhile Canonical said they were going to make the ZFS kernel module part of their default distribution.

Oh please, even the author of the CDDL license states that this is so (Danese Cooper).

And it's not as if that admission was ever needed, were you even around back then ?

Solaris was being killed in the market by Linux, Sun decided to go open source in an effort to better compete with Linux, but there was NO way that they would give away their prized technology (ZFS, DTrace) under a license which would allow their main competitor to whom they were losing, to integrate said technology.

Hence CDDL, GPLv2 incompatible.

Of course this game did not lead to the 'videogame crash' of 83, other videogame areas like the arcades was doing just fine, and home computers as well.

The problem was that the console games of the time were incredibly poor in graphics/sound, and typically also in game play.

Consumers wanted better games than what the console hardware at the time could produce, once something came along which was a technical leap compared to the Atari, Coleco etc, it did fantastically well, this was the NES.

>It is probably more accurate to claim the GPL was designed to be incompatible with an entire class of licenses that includes the CDDL,

It was designed to give and preserve rights for end users, it's not really a big mystery, and the actual rights which are given and preserved perfectly mirror that.

I don't see anything that would substantiate your claim of them being 'deliberately' incompatible with any other licenses (anything you can point to ?), in fact they've fixed incompability problems in GPLv3 with other licenses.

And of course both MPL and CDDL came along much later than GPLv2, with which they were incompatible (MPL 2.0 in turn rectified this).

>can be simplified to one guy thinking GPL incompatibility is a good feature.

No, I don't think for a second that it was 'one guy', again Sun management had absolutely zero reason to allow Linux to incorporate ZFS and DTrace and every business reason not to, in fact from a business standpoint it would have been crazy to hand over ZFS and DTrace to their main competitor.

>but that does not stop people from distributing it as a kernel module and that is how filesystem code is loaded these days, so it is a non-issue.

I'm not at all sure it's a non-issue, this is a Linux kernel module running in Linux kernel space, I'm pretty sure there is a strong case for this being considered a derivative, that said I hope it won't be an issue since having ZFS in a native capacity with minimal effort is a boon for Linux.