Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
<bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Michael DeMan (OA) wrote:
Args for FreeBSD + ZFS:
- Limited budget
- We are familiar with managing FreeBSD.
- We are familiar with tuning FreeBSD.
- Licensing model
Args against OpenSolaris + ZFS:
- Hardware compatibility
- Lack of knowledge for tuning and associated costs for training staff to
learn 'yet one more operating system' they need to support.
- Licensing model
If you think about it a little bit, you will see that there is no
significant difference in the licensing model between FreeBSD+ZFS and
OpenSolaris+ZFS. It is not possible to be a "little bit pregnant". Either
one is pregnant, or one is not.
Well, FreeBSD pretends it's possible, by shipping zfs and bearing BSD
license at the same time.
CDDL only covers the files which are already CDDL so they can't claim a
pure BSD licensed release, but they probably have to include GPL stuff
as well and no idea the status of removing whatever parts of that may be
hanging around. Who cares about license as long as you have the right
to do what *you* need with the source.
/me -> back to coding..
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
