On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Ray Van Dolson <rvandol...@esri.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
> > > > dual-licensed BTRFS.
> > >
> > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
> > > kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...
> > >
> > > As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
> >
> > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
> > own the code.
> >
>
> Maybe there's not legally, but practically there is. If they're not
> GPL compliant, why would Linus or his lieutenants continue to allow the
> code to remain part of the Linux kernel?
>
> And what purpose would btrfs serve Oracle outside of the Linux kernel?
If they wanted to port it to Solaris under a difference license, they
could. This may actually be a backup plan in case the NetApp suit goes
badly. But this is pure conjecture.
- Garrett
>
> Ray
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
