>>>>> "js" == Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes:
js> A GPLd ZFS would however disallow to use it on *BSD and Mac OS
js> X.
and also Solaris. which is why ZFS would not be GPL'd that way. It'd
be a choice of license. I think someone floated the same either/or
license as a ``we'll see'' possibility for the Java source release.
What would happen next is that any improvements Linux developers made
might be GPL-only, because they'd have the right to do that. In the
case of the atheros code they share with BSD, they supposedly agreed
to dual-either/or-license their improvements, but they don't have to,
and they can change their minds. If they didn't, and Linux got a
lively ZFS community, then there'd either be huge duplication of
effort or ZFS in Solaris would fall behind to the point that Linux
would become the definitive release.
I agree that's far from ideal. But Linux developers have the absolute
right to decide how they want to spend their time, and I don't agree
they're being irrational by preferring to work on btrfs than under the
CDDL. I do agree that their _choice_ isn't a ``problem,'' but I
wouldn't stonewall while holding my breath waiting for them to
suddenly change their minds, either.
pgpR4OG7SAEGA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
