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 witnessed on this list is astonishing. The
BSD license, for instance, is fundamentally undesirable to many GPL
licensors (myself included).
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 together
with _any_ other license. So where is the problem?
Indeed because if it did then it would mean that the binary and closed
source graphics drivers available would have had to be GPL as well.
If Linux has a well enough defined VFS layer that allows things just to
plugin without any modification to the rest of the Linux kernel then
there shouldn't be a problem - or at least there is equivalent to the
graphics driver issue.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
