On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rvandol...@esri.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" <codest...@osunix.org> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal > > background. > > > > The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it. > > > > If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and > can > > relicense it under any license they like. > > > > Jörg > > I don't think anyone is arguing that Oracle can relicense their own > copyrighted code as they see fit. > > The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business > motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat > would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle > would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux filesystem > space... > > So, yes, they can do it if they want, I just think they're not THAT > stupid. :) > > > Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he was a part of for five years. The "business motivation" would be to set the competition back a decade. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
