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.
This is the main problem I see with the GPL. It is not written well enough to
make it nonambiguous.
> 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 a similar discussion was held)
> and the prevailing opinion - and if I recall correctly, this includes
> Linus - seems to suggest that using Linux header files to make something
> _also_ available for Linux is ok and doesn't require that the rest of
> the code be GPL'd.
This looks to be the right interpretation from my viewpoint.
> IOW, if you created a filesystem with CDDL/BSD licence _for_ Linux and
> used their equivalent of the VFS layer, a *lot* of people would stand up
> and say your work should also be GPL'd, whether you like it or not.
This seems to be a result of the ambiguous GPL text.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
