Hi Joerg,
Thanks for this clarification. We understand that we can distribute ZFS
binary under a non GPL license, as long as it does not use GPL symbols.
Our plan regarding ZFS is to first port it to Linux kernel and then make its
binary distributions available for various different distributions
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> The problem with this, I think, is that to be used by any significant
> number of users, the module has to be included in a distribution, not just
> distributed by itself. (And the different distributions have their own
> policies on what they will and won't consider
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions of
> > the
> > GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
>
> A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Arguably that line might even be shifted from the act of compiling it,
> to the act of actually loading (linking) it into the Kernel, so that
> distributing a compiled module might even work the same way. I'm not so
> sure about this though. Presumably compiling it befor
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the
restrictions of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work'
in question.
A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
distributing binar
On Fri, October 23, 2009 11:57, Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
> Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions
> of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
>
> I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work
> for a module, leaves t
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions of the
GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question.
A careful reading of GPLv2 shows that restrictions only apply when
distributing binaries.
I would thinkthat
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Anand Mitra wrote:
One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
be mixed, which implies that
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Anand Mitra wrote:
One of the biggest questions around this effort would be “licensing”.
As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn’t restrict us from
modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> > One of the biggest questions around this effort would be ?licensing?.
> > As far as our understanding goes; CDDL doesn?t restrict us from
> > modifying ZFS code and releasing it. However GPL and CDDL code cannot
> > be mixed, which implies that ZFS cannot be compiled in
Anand Mitra wrote:
Hi All,
At KQ Infotech, we have always looked at challenging ourselves by
trying to scope out new technologies. Currently we are porting ZFS to
Linux and would like to share our progress and the challenges faced,
we would also like to know your thoughts/inputs regarding our ef
11 matches
Mail list logo
