On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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.
btrfs is often described as the "next" default Linux filesystem (by Ted T'So and others). It seems odd to me that Oracle wouldn't have an interest in retaining a controlling interest (as in retaining the primary engineers) in its development.... and ensuring it stays in the Linux kernel and meets these expectations... Seems like an excellent long-term strategy to me anyways! Anyways, getting a bit off topic here I suppose, though it's an interesting discussion. :) > > - Garrett > > > > > Ray Ray _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
