On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LLNL is still actively involved in the ZFS on Linux project, so they > are still doing something with it. > Correct, and that can be discovered with a Google search - which found this: *https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/OpenZFS%20-%20LinuxCon_0.pdf <https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/OpenZFS%20-%20LinuxCon_0.pdf>* On the Canonical side there was this article with some comments on the licensing issue: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-ZFS-Standard-Plans Here is another link from the people who should know: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue If the FSF believed the above statement from zfsonlinux was not correct, one would think they would quickly and clearly rebuke it; especially considering Canonical's plans. I haven't found any such statement, perhaps someone else has the link. Again, there can be a multitude of valid reasons that Fedora does not include ZFS. Personally, I think BTRFS is a much better choice than ZFS. I just don't believe people should hang their hat on GPL infringement.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
