Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On May 6, 2008, at 14:59, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > By releasing this bit of code to Grub under the GPL v2 license, Sun > has effectively transferred rights to use that scrap of code (in > any context) regardless of any Sun patents which may apply. Ah, yes, I was wrong on this one - I see Sect

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: > > That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so > Sun has the rights to do this. But being GPLv2 code, why do I have > any patent rights to include/redistribute that grub code in my > (theoretical) product (let's assume it does somet

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On May 6, 2008, at 12:54, eric kustarz wrote: > Some of it has already been done: > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/grub/ > grub-0.95/stage2/zfs-include/uberblock_impl.h That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so Sun has the rights to do th

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On May 5, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote: > Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code > because then the CDDL-based patent protections don't apply? Some of it has already been done: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/grub/grub-0.95/stage2

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code because then the CDDL-based patent protections don't apply? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/m

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Mario Goebbels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel???s supported? > > There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it > isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped. > There won't be in kernel ZFS d

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

> Also if ZFS can be implemented completely outside of the Linux kernel > source tree as a plugin module then it falls into the same category of > modules as proprietary binary device drivers. The Linux community has a strange attitude about proprietary drivers. Otherwise I wouldn't have to put up

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Mario Goebbels wrote: >> What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported? > > There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it > isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped. > There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (C

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

> What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported? There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped. There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (CDDL vs. GPL). -mg

[zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hi All ; What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel's supported? Regards Mertol http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +9053393107

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Erblichs wrote: Joerg Schilling, Stepping back into the tech discussion. If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later releases, dropped functionality could be added in. Suggeste

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Joerg Schilling, Stepping back into the tech discussion. If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later releases, dropped functionality could be added in. Suggested 1.0 Requirements

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Shilling, > > Putting the license issues aside for a moment. I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way. > If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Erblichs wrote: > So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just > time and effort... I believe you are right, there seems to be a lot of interest in porting ZFS to the Linux kernel. The main problem is, no doubt, the license

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Joerg Shilling, Putting the license issues aside for a moment. If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in easily portable sections and non-portable sections. And get a real-time/effort assessment

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

"Paul Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object, > to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel > module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available, > would that be OK from the OpenSo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists > seems to devolve into a license discussion. It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface laye

Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 4/13/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I definitely prefer CDDL or BSD license - they just offer more freedom. +1 The Linux community won't be happy unless they get anything and everything opensourced. And not only opensourced, it has to be under GPL. And not only under GPL, t

Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

And then you complain you can't get zfs or nvidia or wifi or ... drivers, because you want that drivers and you want to force those companies to give them for you under GPLv2. Some companies try to go around that problem and there's still no consensus if it's legal or not - but everyone is happy e

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hello Toby, Friday, April 13, 2007, 3:06:44 PM, you wrote: TT> On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > Those who promulgate the tag for w

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hello Rich, Friday, April 13, 2007, 4:39:03 PM, you wrote: RT> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: >> IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. RT> And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree. >> The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred >> the creation o

Re: STOP PLEASE Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13-Apr-07, at 11:53 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote: Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss. Ack. :) --T The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by non legally trained people on their

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13-Apr-07, at 11:43 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote: On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to M

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote: On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree. The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this

STOP PLEASE Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss. The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by non legally trained people on their interpretations of one license over another. -- Darren J Moffat _

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13-Apr-07, at 4:22 AM, Dick Davies wrote: On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*)

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion. And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree. > The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that spurred > the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to customise it a bit". In > this s

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote: Bart Smaalders writes: Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, build a ZFS for Linux) is u

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote: On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > > >> Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies > >> of Microsoft > >> - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote: > Bart Smaalders writes: > > > Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you > > have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you > > do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, > > build a ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On April 13, 2007 10:48:38 AM +0400 Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail: 1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in GPL/Linux too? 2. If G

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say about what yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Bart Smaalders writes: Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance, build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you. The problem is not with CDD

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists seems to devolve into a license discussion. :0 B: * GPL /dev/null ___ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft > - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code > as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say > about what you do w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Paul Fisher wrote: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module independently and > CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do > about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that > such a high pr

RE: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > So assuming that you simply supply the zfs kernel module independently and > CDDL licensed, there is little that the Linux kernel developers could do > about it. Would never be part of the kernel distribution, but is that > such a high price to pay for zfs on linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 8:31 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > ... > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 8:49 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL would make such a port a deri

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the GPL, Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it start

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, April 12, 2007 4:49 pm, Nicolas Williams wrote: > Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on > OpenSolaris discuss lists seems to devolve > into a license discussion. i think it's a Good Thing because it's important to the community. talking about something like this is the process that c

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:51:06PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: > On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The same applies to Linux, except that many people believe that the GPL > >would make such a port a derivative (because it'd link with the GPLed > >li

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > >> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux >> contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of >> license as >> equal

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > ... > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't > want to give others the same benefit. That's

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote: On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: > On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote: > Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem. I think this sub-thread started with a comment by you about someone else's "kneejerk" "anti-GPL" comments. I don't recall any such comments in this thread. I think you migh

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: > > >On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > >>contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice > > of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the > > GPL, > > Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with silliness like > that? Do you

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote: > >Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > >else) to GPL. > > I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to > BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: ... Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't want to give others the same benefit. That's a pointless remark. Why? BSD licensors choose that licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joerg Schilling writes: There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to p

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? Read what I

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? Hey,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: > > > Rich Teer writes: > > > >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux > >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You see no problems, I see no problems but various Linux people do, > including Linus. But as all we have is a collection of different viewpoints > and nothing has been "decided" in a court of law, the exact meaning is > open to interpretation/discussion.

RE: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Darren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > What stands in ZFS's favour is that it has not been create _for_ Linux, > rather that using the various header files is a way of _also_ making it > available for Linux. Search the internet for discussions of the porting > of AFS to Linux (I think it was AFS where

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

From: "Joerg Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joerg Schilling writes: > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. > > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publ

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is astonishing. The > > BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL > > licensors (myself included). > > Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that > B

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Ignatich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling writes: > > > There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. > > > > Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. > > I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS > > under > > GPL in case

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Joerg Schilling writes: There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL. Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a "derived work" from Linux. I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it toge

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Joerg Schilling wrote: Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnesse

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > > > I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as > > equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > Read wha

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license > as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? > > The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything > else) to GPL. Amen to that! > I don't think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing > list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use > the feature

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 11/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: > Rich Teer writes: >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >> I a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux > contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as > equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? Read what I wrote again, more slowly. Individually, Linux

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

From: "Toby Thain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: Rich Teer writes: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? I agree with this sentime

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 4/11/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does? Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote: Rich Teer writes: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing th

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote: > Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native > Linux? I don't work for Sun so I can't speak for them. The last I heard was that Sun was looking at GPLv3, and considering its use for one or more projects, either dual licensed

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hello Ignatich, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 1:25:57 AM, you wrote: I> Rich Teer writes: >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: >> >>> Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux >>> changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? >> >> I agree with this sen

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Robert Milkowski writes: I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD. Will GPLv3 be CDDL compatible? I don't think so, but I'm no lawyer. Perhaps somebody with more kn

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Rich Teer writes: On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the Linux kernel's license would require the

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote: > Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux > changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris?? I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the Linux kernel's license would require the consent of every co

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

On 4/11/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD. Agreed. Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why n

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hello Ignatich, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 12:32:13 AM, you wrote: I> Hello, I> I believe that ZFS and it's concepts is truly revolutionary to the I> point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have I> comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file I> system/disk man

[zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Hello, I believe that ZFS and it's concepts is truly revolutionary to the point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux. Does Sun have plans to d