Tim Cook wrote:
2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" <codest...@osunix.org
<mailto:codest...@osunix.org>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
"C. Bergström" <codest...@osunix.org
<mailto: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.
Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you
so dense to believe
1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs?
2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code
you can't separate the two of them.
Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't
believe..
ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml
Before making yourself look like a fool, I suggest you look at the
BTRFS commits. Can you find a commit submitted by anyone BUT Oracle
employees? I've yet to see any significant contribution from anyone
outside the walls of Oracle to the project.
I think I've probably dug into the issue a bit deeper than you..
http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html
Oh. .and if you don't believe me ask Josef Bacik from RH..
I'm not directing this at anyone specifically.. Pretty please.. STFU
and go back to trolling somewhere else...
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
