2009/12/8 "C. Bergström" <codest...@osunix.org> > 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.. > > I'd say EVERYONE should care. If they're improperly using a license, it could cause the project to be discontinued entirely. Tying yourself/your production workload to a project that may potentially be gone tomorrow isn't exactly a good idea.
-- --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
