Tim Cook wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net
<mailto:d...@dd-b.net>> wrote:
On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to
release
> any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
> retrospectively change the license on already released code but they
> can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code.
That's true.
However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code,
they must
release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL.
BTRFS can be under any license they want, they own the code. There's
absolutely nothing preventing them from dual-licensing it.
So, if they're going to use it in any way as a product, they have to
release the source. If they want to use it just internally they
can do
anything they want, of course.
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no longer
own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That is not
true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release modifications if
they wish to distribute it due to the GPL. The original author is
free to license the code as many times under as many conditions as
they like, and release or not release subsequent changes they make to
their own code.
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
