On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM, prad <p...@towardsfreedom.com> wrote:
Chris Brennan <xa...@xaerolimit.net> writes: > > > >> one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using > >> debian/freebsd. i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, > >> so presumably it would with debian/freebsd as well. > >> > >> i'm curious as to feelings on this combo vs xfs with straight debian > >> (which is really what we are leaning to) as we start our research on > >> the matter. > >> > > > > You also need to take into account that CDDL (The Sun/Oracle Licence) > > is not compatible with the GNU Licence, so there are legal issues as > > well (see the ZFS link I initially posted a few days ago.) The whole > > point of the rewrite project is to have a native (in-kernel) solution > > that is legally compatible as well as stable (which it's not right > > now.) > > > ok this pretty well seals things. we aren't thinking about doing debian > to support the BSD license (not that i have anything personal against > it, but if we're talking 'free', we need to 'stay free' and not play with > the idea, imho). > > so thanks for eliminating the final brick, chris - xfs here we come! CDDL isn't a BSD Licence, it's the licence that's used by what was Sun Microsystems and is now Oracle. The BSD Licence and GNU can co-exists quite well and have for a very long time. CDDL + *BSD Licences are a little more tolerant of each other which is why ZFS was imported into FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. Once the Linux native solution gains some ground stability-wise, they can seek to find some common ground when it comes to the legalities of it. -- > A: Yes. > >Q: Are you sure? > >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
