Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 19, 2008, at 17:31, David Magda wrote:
> > you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL
> > without worrying about any patents
>
> On May 19, 2008, at 18:12, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > If it was correct, then neither FreeBSD nor Mac OS X could use ZFS.
>
> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, both FreeBSD and OSX use
> a non-trival portion of the CDDL'ed code directly (FreeBSD
> implemented a Solaris compatibility layer so they could do this,
> according to the paper on ZFS on FreeBSD) so the patent rights are
> conferred because the CDDL'ed code is used. Since they're both BSD,
> the licenses are compatible.
>
> A cleanroom implementation would not use the CDDL'ed code, and so the
....
It seems that you are following the wrong idea that the CDDLd original code
cannot be used for Linux directly. This is obviously wrong.
The GPL does not forbid GPLd code to use non-GPLd code from a GPLd project.
If this was not true, then the GPL would be completely unusable. It is bad to
see that RMS in his talks always tells you what he _likes_ to do but never what
the GPL really does (to make it compatible with reality).
Note that the biggest problem for using ZFS in Linux is not the license but the
incompatible Linux filesystem interface.
> On May 19, 2008, at 18:16, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > He only needs to make sure that these people cover more than 50% of
> > the code
> > and that no single contributor who owns more than 5% of the whole
> > source
> > remains unasked.
>
> That would be convenient, but do you have cite (it would help my
> understanding of this morass)? I don't see where the GPLv2 trumps
> Berne Convention copyright. The *GNU Project* code does require
> copyright assignment, for this reason (turns out they were on to
> something, IMHO).
Looks like a missunderstanding of Copyright...
The European Copyright law explicitely contains a provision that disallows
minority contributors to control the way of marketing. In an OSS environment,
this means that you still pave to pay the part of the income (a fraction of 0)
to minority contributors but they cannot control the license.
BTW: Simon Phipps told me last year that the wife of Eric Raymond (beeing a
lawywer) recently wrote an article that claims that the same applies to US
Copyright and that for this reason, Linus _could_ change the license together
with a few additional people.
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
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
