On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM, "C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Matt Aitkenhead wrote: > > I see that you have wasted no time. I'm still determining if you have a > sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an axe to grind. > The latter is shining through. > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > Hi Matt, > > I'd like to make our correspondence in public if you don't mind so my > intention isn't mistaken. My point wasn't at all to grind an axe. > > 1) That's no way to encourage a company which is already scared of open > source to even think about releasing patches. (Sun's marketing isn't > stupid.. they did this because it's good for them) > 2) I am sincerely interested in your product (as others seem to be as well) > > Code review, increased testing and viral marketing are all typically > good things. Anyway, hope this clears things up. > > Cheers, > > ./C > ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require derivative works to be open source. It's truly free like the BSD license in that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed. They are not forced to share their code. That's why there are "closed" patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris. While you may not like it, this isn't the GPL. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
