[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2008 07:15:46 AM:
> Hello Wade,
>
> Monday, October 6, 2008, 8:56:12 PM, you wrote:
>
> WSfc> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/06/2008 01:57:10
PM:
>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> In another thread a short while ago.. A cool little movie with some
> >> gumballs was all we got to learn about green-bytes. The product
> >> launched and maybe some of the people that follow this list have had a
> >> chance to take a look at the code/product more closely? Wstuart asked
> >> how they were going to handle section 3.1 of the CDDL, but nobody from
> >> green-bytes even made an effort to clarify this. I called since I'm
> >> consulting with companies who are potential customers, but are any ofs
> >> developers even subscribed to this list?
> >>
> >> After a call and exchanging a couple emails I'm left with the
impression
> >> the source will *not* be released publicly or to customers. I'm not
the
> >> copyright holder, a legal expert, or even a customer, but can someone
> >> from Sun or green-bytes make a comment. I apologize for being a bit
off
> >> topic, but is this really acceptable to the community/Sun in general?
> >> Maybe the companies using Solaris and NetApp don't care about source
> >> code, but then the whole point of opening Solaris is just reduced to
> >> marketing hype.
> >>
>
> WSfc> Yes, this would be interesting. CDDL requires them to release
code for
> WSfc> any executable version they ship. Considering they claim to
> have "...start
> WSfc> with ZFS and makes it better" it sounds like they have modified
CDDL
> WSfc> covered code. Since Sun owns that code they would need to rattle
the
> WSfc> cage. Sun? Anyone have any talks with these guys yet?
>
> Isn't CDDL file based so they could implement all the new functionality
in
> new files and only added some includes and couple of useless (if
> provided alone) changes.
>
Robert,
Yes -- file based and derivative code based (copy covered code to a
new file and that file is now covered). New code in a new file is not
automatically covered and the authors choice. That said, if they have
added dedup to zfs they may have taken extraordinary steps to segment their
code from covered code. My hunch is they did not. Everything from
resilver, zil etc would need to be dedup aware. Either case, release the
required code and there is no harm no foul right? If it is stubs, then so
be it. I am more interested to see if they implemented it the same way I
started to or if it is something new. If it is code complete and all
covered even better.
-Wade
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
